Magister in Business Administration

Transcription

APPLYING A LEAN ENGAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TOOL
TO IMPROVE THE PROBABILITY OF SUCCESSFUL LEAN
IMPLEMENTATION AT
AB COMPANY
C. P. KLEINHANS
201360055
Research proposal submitted in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the degree
Magister in Business Administration
in the Faculty of
Business and Economic Sciences
of the
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
Supervisor: Professor J. J. Pieterse
November 2010
PORT ELIZABETH
i
CONTENTS
DECLARATION
iii
ABSTRACT
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
v
LIST OF FIGURES
ix
LIST OF TABLES
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
xiii
ii
DECLARATION
I, Carel P. Kleinhans, hereby declare that:
−
the content of this treatise is my own original work;
−
all sources used or referenced have been documented and recognised; and
−
this treatise has not been previously submitted in full or partial fulfilment of the
requirements for an equivalent or higher qualification at any other recognised
educational institution.
C.P. Kleinhans
Port Elizabeth
November 2010
iii
ABSTRACT
Employee engagement is the level of commitment, involvement, business context
awareness and positive attitude that employees have towards the organisation and
its values. Engaged employees work with colleagues to improve job performance for
the benefit of the organisation.
Authors argue that employee engagement is central to lean manufacturing, but also
states that the success rate for successful implementation is low.
This purpose of this paper is to apply an assessment tools to measure the readiness
for major change at AB Company and thereby increase the probability of transacting
a successful implementation of lean manufacture.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE BUSINESS UNDER REVIEW
2
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
2
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
4
1.3.1 Primary objective
4
1.3.2 Secondary objectives
4
1.3.3 Research design objectives
5
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
6
1.4.1 Sample and sample size
6
1.4.2 The measuring instrument
6
1.5 OUTLINE OF THE STUDY
6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
8
2.1 LEAN MANUFACTURING
9
2.1.1 Background and overview of lean
9
2.1.2 The Toyota production system (TPS) and lean
11
2.1.3 The benefits of lean manufacturing
14
2.1.4 High lean implementation failure rates
15
2.1.5 Possible reasons for lean implementation failures
16
2.1.6 Lean as a philosophy and culture
24
2.1.7 Lean leadership and management
27
2.1.8 Lean human resource implications
29
2.2 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
30
2.2.1 Defining engagement
31
2.2.2 Industry versus academic approach
35
2.2.3 Importance of employee engagement
36
2.2.4 Organisational and individual benefits
39
2.2.5 Drivers of employee engagement
42
2.2.6 The organisation
44
a. Management and leadership
2.2.7 The working life
45
46
v
2.3 THE LEAN SUSTAINABILITY ZONE
2.3.1 Economic sustainability
48
48
2.3.2 The linkage between lean manufacturing and employee
engagement
49
2.4 SUMMARY
52
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
55
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN
55
56
56
3.1.3 Survey procedure
61
3.1.4 Data analysis
62
3.2 SUMMARY
63
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
64
4.1 THE SAMPLE
64
4.1.1 The sample characteristics
65
4.2 MEASURING INSTRUMENT RELIABILITY
69
4.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESULTS
69
4.3.1 How do I feel about my job? (Category A)
69
a. Question 1: I am clear of what is expected of me in my job
71
b. Question 2: My colleagues and I work to same standards
72
c. Question 3: I have been adequately trained for tasks I do
73
d. Question 4: The planning and organising of the days' work
is good
4.3.2 How do I feel about myself? (Category B)
75
76
a. Question 5: My work gives me a strong sense of
achievement
77
b. Question 6: People are usually thanked for a good job or for
some special work
c. Question 7: I feel I could take on more responsibility
78
80
d. Question 8: I want to contribute to making AB Company
a very successful company
81
vi
4.3.3 How do I feel about team working? (Category C)
83
a. Question 9: Management want team working to be the basis
way we work
84
b. Question 10: We have good communication within and
between teams
85
c. Question 11: I am part of a group that have real team spirit87
d. Question 12: People are willing to confront problems openly
rather than hide them
4.3.4 How do I feel about improving my job? (Category D)
88
90
a. Question 13: I am regularly asked how to improve my work91
b. Question 14: I am consulted about plans that affect me93
c. Question 15: My team holds regular meetings to discuss
continuous improvements
94
d. Question 16: My team measures the quality of work and
strives for improvement
4.3.5 How do I feel about the working environment? (Category E)
96
97
a. Question 17: I accept that changes being made are necessary 98
b. Question 18: I have long-term job security
100
c. Question 19: The company consults before implementing
major changes
101
d. Question 20: AB Company is a friendly place to work103
4.3.6 How do I feel about safety? (Category F)
104
a. Question 21: I am able to improve health and safety at work for
myself and colleagues
105
b. Question 22: My supervisor and management team
take safety concerns
106
c. Question 23: The AB Company safety programs / systems
have helped to improve my safety at
108
d. Question 24: I comply with all safety standard operating
procedures and behavioural safety standards
109
vii
4.3.7 Comparative dispersion statistics for qualitative variables
111
a. Engagement results by functional area
111
b. Engagement results by geographic location
111
c. Engagement results by age generation
112
d. Engagement results by position
113
4.3.8 Overall organisational engagement
113
4.4 ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE LEAN SUSTAINABILITY ZONE TOOL 114
4.4.1 Lean readiness and sustainability assessment - functional areas
115
4.4.2 Lean readiness and sustainability assessment – geographic
location
115
4.4.3 Lean readiness and sustainability assessment – age
generation
4.4.4 Lean readiness and sustainability assessment – job position
116
117
4.5 SUMMARY
117
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
118
5.1 SUMMARY
118
5.1.1 Chapter 2: Literature review
118
a. Lean manufacturing
118
b. Employee engagement
119
c. The linkage between lean manufacturing and employee
engagement
d. The lean sustainability zone
121
121
5.1.2 Chapter 3: Research methodology and design
122
5.1.3 Chapter 4: Results and interpretation
122
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
124
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
125
5.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
127
5.5 CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
128
REFERENCE LIST
129
APPENDICES
146
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1:
The Toyota Production System
12
Figure 2.2:
Affect of engagement on financial performance
41
Figure 2.3:
Average engagement score by generation
44
Figure 2.4:
Informing and refining the lean sustainability zone
51
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
Figure 4.1:
Relative frequencies by functional area
65
Figure 4.2:
Breakdown of employees per functional area
66
Figure 4.3:
Relative frequencies by geographic location
66
Figure 4.4:
Relative frequencies excluding shop floor employees
67
Figure 4.5:
Relative frequencies by generation
67
Figure 4.6:
Relative frequencies by job position
68
Figure 4.7:
Histogram - How do I feel about my job? (Category A)
70
Figure 4.8:
Histogram - I am clear of what is expected of me in my job
71
Figure 4.9:
Histogram - My colleagues and I work to same standards
72
Figure 4.10: Histogram - I have been adequately trained for tasks I do
74
Figure 4.11: Histogram - The planning and organising of the days' work is
good
Figure 4.12: Histogram - How do I feel about myself? (Category B)
75
76
Figure 4.13: Histogram - My work gives me a strong sense of achievement 77
Figure 4.14: Histogram - People are usually thanked for a good job
or for some special work
79
Figure 4.15: Histogram - I feel I could take on more responsibility
80
Figure 4.16: Histogram - I want to contribute to making AB Company
82
Figure 4.17: Histogram - How do I feel about team working? (Category C)
83
Figure 4.18: Histogram - Management want team-working to be the
basis way we work
84
Figure 4.19: Histogram - We have good communication within and
between teams
86
ix
Figure 4.20: Histogram - I am part of a group that have real team spirit
87
Figure 4.21: Histogram - People are willing to confront problems openly
89
Figure 4.22: Histogram - How do I feel about improving my job?
(Category D)
91
Figure 4.23: Histogram - I am regularly asked how to improve my work
92
Figure 4.24: Histogram - I am consulted about plans that affect me
93
Figure 4.25: Histogram - My team holds regular meetings to discuss
95
Figure 4.26: Histogram - My team measures the quality of work and
96
Figure 4.27: Histogram - How do I feel about the working environment?
(Category E)
98
Figure 4.28: Histogram - I accept that changes being made are necessary
99
Figure 4.29: Histogram - I have long-term job security
100
Figure 4.30: Histogram - The company consults before implementing
major changes
102
Figure 4.31: Histogram - AB Company is a friendly place to work
103
Figure 4.32: Histogram - How do I feel about safety? (Category F)
104
Figure 4.33: Histogram - I am able to improve health and safety at
work for myself and colleagues
105
Figure 4.34: Histogram - My supervisor and management team take
safety concerns seriously
107
Figure 4.35: Histogram - The AB Company safety programs / systems
have helped to improve my safety at work
108
Figure 4.36: Histogram - I comply with all safety standard operating
110
Figure 4.37: Engagement by organisation business function
111
Figure 4.38: Engagement by geographic location
112
Figure 4.39: Engagement by age generation
112
Figure 4.40: Engagement by organisational position level
113
Figure 4.41: Scattergram – Engagement result at AB Company
114
x
Figure 4.42: Functional areas – Readiness and future sustainability of
lean transformation
115
Figure 4.43: Geographical locations – Readiness and future sustainability
of lean transformation
116
Figure 4.44: Age generations – Readiness and future sustainability of
lean transformation
116
Figure 4.45: Job position – Readiness and future sustainability of lean
transformation
117
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 5.1:
Organisational engagement by category
125
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1:
Ten most frequently occurring implementation problems
19
Table 2.2:
Why major change transformation fail in the unfreeze stage
20
Table 2.3:
Why major change transformation fail in the change stage
21
Table 2.4:
Why major change transformation fail in the refreeze stage
22
Table 2.5:
Comparison of implementation failure reasons
23
Table 2.6:
Difference between leaders and managers
28
Table 2.7:
National index of employee engagement
38
Table 4.1:
Generations defined by year of birth
68
Table 4.2:
Statistics - How do I feel about my job? (Category A)
70
Table 4.3:
Statistics - I am clear of what is expected of me in my job
72
Table 4.4:
Statistics - My colleagues and I work to same standards
73
Table 4.5:
Statistics - I have been adequately trained for tasks I do
74
Table 4.6:
Statistics - The planning and organising of the days' work is
CHAPTER 4:
good
76
Table 4.7:
Statistics - How do I feel about myself? (Category B)
77
Table 4.8:
Statistics - My work gives me a strong sense of achievement
78
xi
Table 4.9:
Statistics - People are usually thanked for a good job
or for some special work
79
Table 4.10:
Statistics - I feel I could take on more responsibility
81
Table 4.11:
Statistics - I want to contribute to making AB Company
82
Table 4.12: Statistics - How do I feel about team working? (Category C)
83
Table 4.13: Statistics - Management want team working to be the
basis way we work
85
Table 4.14: Statistics - We have good communication within and
between teams
86
Table 4.15:
Statistics - I am part of a group that have real team spirit
88
Table 4.16:
Statistics - People are willing to confront problems openly
90
Table 4.17: Statistics - How do I feel about improving my job?
(Category D)
91
Table 4.18: Statistics - I am regularly asked how to improve my work
92
Table 4.19:
Statistics - I am consulted about plans that affect me
94
Table 4.20:
Statistics - My team holds regular meetings to discuss
95
Table 4.21: Statistics - My team measures the quality of work and
97
Table 4.22: Statistics - How do I feel about the working environment?
(Category E)
98
Table 4.23: Statistics - I accept that changes being made are necessary
Table 4.24:
99
Statistics - I have long-term job security
101
Table 4.25: Statistics - The company consults before implementing
major changes
102
Table 4.26: Statistics - AB Company is a friendly place to work
104
Table 4.27:
Statistics - How do I feel about safety? (Category F)
105
Table 4.28:
Statistics - I am able to improve health and safety at
work for myself and colleagues
106
Table 4.29: Statistics - My supervisor and management team
take safety concerns seriously
107
xii
Table 4.30: Statistics - The AB Company safety programs /
systems have helped to improve my safety at work
Table 4.31:
109
Statistics - I comply with all safety standard operating
110
Descriptive statistics on total sample collected
114
Table 5.1:
Factors relating to the levels of engagement by generation
120
Table 5.2:
Organisational variables and engagement levels
124
Table 4.32:
CHAPTER 5:
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: PERMISSION TO USE MEASURING INSTRUMENT
146
APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE
147
APPENDIX 3: INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS 148
APPENDIX 4: SURVEY RESPONSES BY DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLE
149
APPENDIX 5: SUMMARY STATISTICS OF QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS 150
xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Competitiveness is crucial to achieving solid future national economics. A
nation’s competitiveness reflects the extent to which it is able to provide
increased prosperity to its citizens. Competitiveness can be defined to include
the level of productivity of a country. This, in turn, sets the sustainability level of
prosperity that can be achieved by an economy (Porter & Schwab, 2008).
President Mbeki stated in the 2004 State of the Nation Address that “(South
Africa) must continue to focus on the growth, development, and modernisation
of the First Economy” (National Research Foundation, n.d.).
The National Research Foundation (n.d.) claims that knowledge, innovation,
and productivity, as well as optimal use of resources in the enterprise, are key
to a competitive, sustainable growing economy.
Firms involved in lean manufacturing do so to improve overall company
performance in terms of productivity, efficiency, profitability and reducing costs.
More than 90 per cent of these firms claim to be successful in achieving such
goals. There is a clear association between the use of lean manufacturing and
achieving higher productivity (Lucey, 2008a).
Against this research and the claims made by the National Research
Foundation it may be stated that lean manufacturing results will impact
positively on an economy’s growth.
AB Company will be evaluated in terms of the readiness and future
sustainability of its lean transformation for the purposes of this study. It is
anticipated that the results of this study will contribute toward reducing the risk
of failure associated with a major lean transformation in the business.
1
1.1
BACKGROUND OF THE BUSINESS UNDER REVIEW
The identity of AB Company is withheld for reasons of confidentiality. AB
Company competes in the manufacturing segment of industry and has a
national footprint with operations in Port Elizabeth and the Gauteng area, as
well as international presence in Portugal and Spain. AB Company has been
operating, under different names, since the late 1940s. A number of
acquisitions took place over the past few decades, primarily to increase its
national and global footprint.
Each manufacturing site specialises in specific product lines, aligned with the
organisations’ product segmentation strategy. Basic product designs are
amended to different product variations and are manufactured at various
manufacturing sites to customers’ specifications. The product type has a
relatively high degree of variability that exists throughout its operations, to
varying degrees of variation. The manufacturing operation with the largest
degree of variation is located in Port Elizabeth where more than 2000 variations
of product are manufactured.
The South African division of AB Company recently embarked on a lean
transformation. For the purposes of this study, the sample will consist only of
the South African operations. This is mainly due to the cultural differences
between the local and overseas facilities.
1.2
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Lean manufacturing is a competitive strategy adopted by many organisations.
Various studies into the critical success factors of lean manufacturing claim that
the human factor plays a significant role in the success of such transformation.
Employee engagement has become more critical as an implementation barrier
to lean manufacturing, as corroborated by studies conducted during the period
2002 to 2006 (Lucey, 2008a).
2
Kotter (1995) states that he has witnessed more than 100 organisations
endeavour to implement major change, with only a few proving successful in
doing so. Approximately 75 per cent of all transition efforts fail and 50 to 75 per
cent of all reengineering projects fail (Ernst & Young, 1992).
Determining transition failure rates are not as easy as it seems. Most
organisations do not report failures. The costs involved are usually substantial;
however, such costs are generally not calculated or disclosed (Lucey, 2009a).
Kotter (1996) recognises the high costs associated with implementation failures
and states that in “too many situations the improvements have been
disappointing and the carnage has been appalling, with wasted resources and
burnout, scared, or frustrated employees”.
Statistics relating to change initiatives, and more specifically that of lean
intervention, are not significantly better. Mora (Bhasin & Burcher 2006, p.56)
claims that “only some 10 per cent or less of companies succeeds at
implementing TPM and other lean manufacturing practices”.
Against the acknowledged high failure rates associated with lean
implementation Carnall (2003) raised the question of “an index for change
readiness” to reduce the failure rates of major change initiatives.
The following simplified problem statement may serve in the pursuit of
measuring the change readiness of AB Company with regard to major lean
transformation:
Would applying a lean engagement assessment tool improve the
probability of successful lean implementation at AB Company?
The following secondary questions underpin the primary problem statement and
were considered significant to resolving the afore-mentioned primary problem
statement:
3
−
What do prior studies in the field of lean manufacturing and employee
engagement reveal?
−
Is there a relationship between lean manufacturing and employee
engagement and if so, what are the critical success factors?
−
Does a lean engagement assessment tool exist to measure the state of
an organisation’s readiness for change?
−
What is the readiness state of AB Company?
The research objectives will next be discussed.
1.3
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Prior research has proven that employee engagement is a critical barrier to the
implementation of lean manufacturing (Lucey, 2008b).
1.3.1 Primary objective
The main objective of the research was to contribute toward improving the
success and sustainability of a major lean transformation at AB Company. It
was anticipated that this would be achieved by investigating one of the more
important determinants, namely employee engagement.
Moreover, an
assessment tool would be applied to determine the AB Company’s index of
readiness for the transformation, as well as the future sustainability of this
initiative.
1.3.2 Secondary objectives
In pursuit of the primary objective, the following generic secondary objectives
investigated specific areas of employee engagement:
−
How do I feel about my job?
−
How do I feel about myself?
−
How do I feel about team working?
−
How do I feel about improving my job?
−
How do I feel about the working environment?
−
How do I feel about safety? (Lucey, 2009b).
4
A number of variables were investigated from an organisation-specific
perspective, namely:
−
the organisational functional area in which the respondent is active;
−
the geographic location where the respondent resides, such as a specific
manufacturing plant or sales office;
−
the employee’s generation; and
−
the position held by the respondent within the organisation.
1.3.3 Research design objectives
The following objectives were pursued to achieve the primary objective:
−
a secondary literature review was conducted on the variables
investigated in the study;
−
a survey questionnaire was employed in pursuit of the secondary
objectives and responses were measured against a 6-point scale;
−
a respondent sample was drawn from employees employed at AB
Company during the period that the survey was conducted;
−
data was collected by means of an electronic questionnaire survey,
utilising the survey tool PHPESP (Butterfat, n.d.), after initial identification
and introduction via e-mail to appropriate sample candidates;
−
a second sample frame was surveyed by means of a traditional, manual
survey;
−
assurance regarding total confidentiality and anonymity, as well as an
undertaking to provide feedback at the conclusion of the study, was
provided;
−
the acquired data was captured in MS Excel, utilising accepted
techniques of coding and segmentation to facilitate analysis;
−
XLSTAT (XLSTAT, n.d.) was employed to analyse the data, subsequent
to which it was tested for reliability;
−
the analysed data was interpreted and reported on; and
−
recommendations regarding improving the probability of a successful,
sustainable lean transformation were submitted to AB Company.
5
1.4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research paradigm used for this research was of a positivistic nature,
mainly due to the exploratory, cross-sectional and descriptive nature of the
study. This was further supported by quantitative data collected from the
organisation, as well as some qualitative variables collected to support the data
analysis.
The sample frames selected for this study comprised (1) all employees with
access to a computer (522 units); and (2) shop floor employees without access
to a computer at the Port Elizabeth operation (306 units). It was expected that
the sample frames selected would improve representation. An approach of
non-probability sampling was adopted, whilst convenience sampling was used
to obtain the required data from the respondents.
The measuring instrument employed was developed and validated by Lucey
(2009b). This instrument was specifically developed and validated to measure
the readiness of an organisation to commence a major lean transformation, as
well as to measure the future sustainability of such a transformation. The
measuring instrument was adopted to capture additional data, specific to the
organisation researched.
1.5
OUTLINE OF THE STUDY
The study consists of five chapters. The first chapter summarises the scope of
the study, as well as the problem statement, objectives and the research
methodology followed. Chapter 2 examines the nature, importance and
benefits of lean manufacturing and employee engagement. The chapter further
provides a discussion on the relationship between the two concepts and the
lean assessment tool.
6
Chapter 3 examines the research methodology, whilst Chapter 4 is concerned
with the analysis of the quantitative data, as well as the qualitative organisation
specific variables.
Chapter 5 contains the results of the study, the interpretation thereof,
recommendations to the company and the limitations of the study.
7
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Organisations continuously strive to improve performance in all areas of the
enterprise. This results in business leaders continuously searching for new and
innovative ways and systems to improve business performance and attain
competitive advantage. One such an initiative is lean manufacturing, or lean, as
referred to in the manufacturing arena. It is regarded as one of the more
prominent interventions, mainly due to its record of accomplishment in Japan
and, more specifically, in the Toyota Motor Company.
One of the more common problems experienced with lean transition, or any
major change intervention, is the ability of an organisation to sustain its
changed environment into the future to realise the benefits thereof. Change is
not the challenge, but transformation is (Bridges, 2002). Change is a situational
event, whereas transformation is a psychological process that people need to
experience to come to terms with the change. Simply put, change is external,
whilst transformation is internal (Bridges, 2002).
Flourishing organisations recognise the importance of employee retention and
talent management as an integral component to sustain organisational growth.
Building a talent-rich organisation that attracts, retains and engages with
employees is crucial to the success of organisations in the globalised economy.
Engaged employees are willing and able to contribute to the success of the
company and are, therefore, real assets to an organisation (Rama Devi, 2009).
Competitive advantage incorporates physical and financial resources, marketing
capability and human resources. The most likely contributor to competitive
advantage is that of human resources and the appropriate management
thereof. Successful organisations find unique and innovative ways to attract,
retain and motivate employees. This is a difficult strategy to imitate, whereas
production, technology, financing and marketing are aspects that can be copied
(Fisher, Schoenfeldt & Shaw, 2006).
8
Considering the importance of people, the organisation’s primary source of
competitive advantage, this study will focus on the employees’ role in the lean
transformation in an organisation. The purpose of this study is to apply a lean
assessment tool to assess the probability of a successful lean implementation,
as well as the future sustainability thereof, at AB Company. The literature
review serves as background to the assessment of the readiness and future
sustainability of a major lean transition. This will be achieved by clarifying the
concepts and history of lean manufacturing and employee engagement,
specifically aiming to discuss and explain:
−
lean manufacturing as a concept, including the benefits, failure rates and
important aspects to take cognisance of when introducing the lean
initiative;
−
employee engagement as a model, as well as the importance, benefits
and drivers thereof;
−
the association between lean manufacturing and employee engagement;
and
−
the lean assessment tool.
The value of this study is to assist AB Company to understand the current
situation regarding the readiness and sustainability of a lean transition and to
enable it to put actions in place to prevent the failure of the change initiative.
2.1
LEAN MANUFACTURING
The terms “lean manufacturing” and “lean” have become catchphrases during
the past two decades. This is especially true in the Western world where
organisations are compelled to become more effective and efficient and,
ultimately, more competitive is especially prevalent.
2.1.1 Background and overview of lean
Henry Ford and General Motors’ Alfred Sloan changed the world of craft
manufacture to one of mass production after World War 1 (Womack, Jones &
Roos, 1990).
9
Production processes typically consisted of what is known as craft production
before the inception of mass production. This methodology rendered good
quality product, but output was low. The strength of this approach was that
every craftsman made a product as a whole, accountability thus resided with
one person. This was also more stimulating for the individual concerned as
everyone could appreciate the fruits of their labour (Genaidy & Karwowski
2003).
Typically, in craft production, highly-skilled human resources utilises flexible
tools to deliver exactly what the customer wants, one item at a time.
Conversely, mass production uses narrow-skilled professionals to design
products that can be made by unskilled or semiskilled workers, on singlepurpose machines. This concept delivers standardised products in very high
volumes. The downside of this methodology, however, is the high costs
associated with equipment investment, inventory and changeover, thereby
resulting in less choice or variety for the consumer (Womack et al, 1990).
Taiichi Ohno and Eiji Toyoda from Toyota Motor Company in Japan led the way
with the lean manufacturing concept after World War 2. According to Genaidy
and Karwowski (2003) and Womack et al (1990), lean manufacturing is a hybrid
of both the craft and mass production systems.
The lean manufacturing theory endeavours to combine the advantages of both
the craft and mass production concepts by avoiding the high costs of craft
manufacture and eliminating the rigidity of mass production. This is achieved
primarily by employing a combination of multi-skilled human resources and
highly flexible machines.
Lean production is termed “lean” because it
essentially uses less of everything, in comparison to mass production. It uses
less human effort, less manufacturing space, less investment in tools, less
engineering development time and requires less inventory on hand, all toward
providing the consumer with an ever-growing variety of products. In terms of
product quality, mass production pursues a “maximum number of defects”
10
approach, whereas lean pursues “perfection” in declining costs, zero defects,
zero inventories and endless product varieties (Womack et al, 1990).
Womack et al (1990) simplify the term “lean production” by focusing on it as a
process of elimination waste or “muda”, the Japanese term for waste. A
mindset of “lean thinking” was promoted actively in the mid-nineties on the
strength of it providing a potential answer to converting waste into value. This
was to be achieved by finding a means to specify value, arrange value-creating
activities in the best sequence, conduct these activities without interruption
whenever someone requested them, and perform them with increasing efficacy.
This emphasised the approach of doing more with less, whilst getting closer to
providing the customers with exactly what they want.
The basic organising principles of work in a lean environment are different to
that of a mass production environment. This may be ascribed to the higher
demands of cognitive work required in a lean environment. Typically, in a mass
manufacturing environment, the resource requirements are limited due to
specialisation, the narrow division of labour and a centralised hierarchy that
manages control and coordination. Much of the centralised control and
coordination in a lean environment reverts to labour, demanding increased
cognitive contribution by the individuals.
Lean manufacturing, as a concept, is synonymous with the Toyota Production
System, which is obvious as this is from where it originates.
2.1.2 The Toyota production system (TPS) and lean
Shingo (1989) charted the development of the Toyota Production System (TPS)
th
from its origins (where intermediate warehouses were eliminated in the mid-20
century) to where fixed position stopping systems were introduced on the
manufacturing lines. Shingo further describes the TPS simply as a process of
−
80 per cent elimination of waste;
−
15 per cent production system; and
−
5 per cent Kanban (Shingo, 1989).
11
The TPS is the most prominent example of lean processes employed and has
become the benchmark for competitive manufacturing throughout the world.
The best-described model of the TPS is represented by a house, as depicted in
Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: The Toyota Production System
Source: Liker & Morgan, 2006
The association is with a house, as it is well known that a house, as a system, is
only as strong as its weakest link. This then implies that all the components
work together, as a whole.
The different components of the house, or parts of the system, can be
described as follows:
−
Just-in-time (JIT) is about flow; making materials flow through the various
processes, getting the right parts at the correct time to the correct place
of consumption;
−
jidoka is a lesser known concept of the TPS and is representative of
machines with “human intelligence”, with the primary purpose of
detecting deviation from a standard and stopping the process while
waiting for help; and
12
−
the foundation of the TPS house portrays the need for overall stability of
the system on which JIT and jidoka can be built:
•
heijunka means levelling in terms of orders and workload;
•
standardised and stable processes to support JIT and optimal
inventory levels; and
•
waste reduction and continuous improvement, underpinned by the
people and teamwork that forms the core of the system
(Liker & Morgan, 2006).
JIT is all about flow, however, flow is interrupted at times in practice by design
to facilitate flow in the greater whole of the system. This can practically be
explained by the following example: Fillers for a cable are manufactured “offline” in batches, in readiness to supply the main flow of the product. Inventory
in these instances are managed to the correct levels as excess will be
considered waste.
The primary function of Jidoka is to eliminate defects. This is achieved by
identifying defects as soon as possible and shutting down the process, thereby
preventing any further value being added to an already defective part. The
manual example of this principle may be that of a machine operator allowed to
stop production by pulling the emergency cord on a machine when a problem is
observed with the product. In conjunction with the automatic and manual
intelligence aspects of Jidoka, a signalling device immediately summons the
team leader to assist with the problem as soon as the machine stops. This
signalling device is referred to as an “andon” and normally consists of a series
of lights or audible alarms, or both. Jidoka contain problems as soon as it they
are detected and reoccurring problems assist with continuous improvement
initiatives (Womack & Jones, 1996).
Heijunka, or levelling, typically refers to the need to endeavour to keep orders
and workload balanced, without having to compensate with excessive inventory
or “safety stock”. Womack and Jones (1996) define heijunka as the “creation of
13
a level schedule by sequencing orders in a repetitive pattern and smoothing the
day-to-day variations in total orders to correspond to long term demand”.
Continuous improvement, or kaizen as it is known in lean circles, is the process
of “continuous, incremental improvement of an activity to create more value and
less muda” (Womack & Jones, 1996). It is apparent from the definition that
continuous improvement supports the notion of striving for perfection. This is
not optional in a lean system and is a concept that can only be pursued with
skilled and motivated employees (Liker & Morgan, 2006). Found and Harvey
(2006) and Van Dun, Hicks, Wilderom and Van Lieshout (2008) confirms the
importance of people to achieving ideas and knowledge in the lean system.
Waste reduction is one of the more important and tangible facets of the TPS.
Everything in addition to value, as required by the customer, may be viewed as
waste and the elimination thereof must be pursued. Eight types of waste have
been defined:
−
over-production;
−
waiting;
−
transportation;
−
inappropriate processing;
−
inventory;
−
unnecessary motions; and
−
defects (Liker, 1996; Maskell, 2000; Philips, 2002; Womack & Jones,
1996).
2.1.3 The benefits of lean manufacturing
Organisations are confronted continuously with the ongoing battle to be
competitive, a primary characteristic of a sustainable business, both in local and
international markets. Literature provides empirical evidence that proves that
lean assists organisations in achieving competitiveness (Dimancescu, Hines &
Rich, 1997; Liker, 1996, 2004; Olexa, 2002a, 2002b; Siekman, 2000; Standard
& Davis, 2000; Vasilash, 2001).
14
The lean production system has gained a great deal of attention over the past
two decades, specifically for its claimed benefits. This was further corroborated
when the International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP) at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) reported that:
−the Toyota Takaota auto assembly plant in Japan was twice as
productive as the General Motors Framington auto assembly plant (16
assembly hours per car for the Tokaota plant versus 31 hours per car for
the Framington plant); and
−the quality of the Takaota plant was three times better than that of the
Framington plant (45 and 135 defects per 100 cars for the Takaota and
Framington plants, respectively) (Womack et al, 1990).
Manufacturers across the world tend to excel either at high levels of quality or
productivity, but never in both. Japan is the exception in that it manages to
achieve both deliverables effectively (Genaidy & Karwowski, 2003). Womack et
al (1990) argue that this phenomenon may be ascribed to the use of lean
production systems in Japanese plants.
Benchmarking studies of Japanese manufacturers have found that lean delivers
benefits fourfold (Sheridan, 2000) and that organisations that employ mass
production can expect a reduction of 90 per cent in lead times, inventories and
cost of quality, as well as an increase of 50 per cent in labour productivity when
changing to lean manufacture (Lathin & Mitchell, 2001a). Sohal and Eggleston
(1994) state that “Two-thirds of the companies said that a strategic advantage
had been generated ... with the greatest improvements stemming from market
competitive positioning, customer relationships and quality constraints”.
2.1.4 High lean implementation failure rates
Determining transition failure rates are not as easy as it seems. Most
organisations do not report failures.
The costs involved are normally
substantial, but is generally not calculated or disclosed (Lucey, 2009a). Kotter
(1996) recognises the high cost associated with implementation failures and
asserts that “in too many situations the improvements have been disappointing
15
and the carnage has been appalling, with wasted resources and burnout,
scared, or frustrated employees”.
It is claimed that change management is not working as it should. Leading
practitioners of corporate reengineering reports that success rates in Fortune
1000 companies are well below 50 per cent, with some success rates as low as
20 per cent (Strebel, 1966). Boonstra (2002) confirms that the vast majority of
business reengineering initiatives in the United States (US) have failed, while
Kotter (1995) states that he has witnessed more than 100 organisations
endeavouring to implement major change, of which only a few proved
successful. According to Ernst & Young (1992), approximately 75 per cent of all
transition efforts fail and 50 to 75 per cent of all reengineering projects fail.
The statistics relating to change initiatives, more specifically that of lean
intervention, do not appear significantly better. Mora (Bhasin & Burcher 2006,
p.56) claims that “Only some 10 per cent or less of companies succeed at
implementing TPM and other lean manufacturing practices”. Baker (2002) and
O'Corrbui and Corboy (1999) substantiate this and allege that less than 10 per
cent of United Kingdom organisations accomplish successful lean
implementations. Sohal and Eggleston (1994) argue that only 10 per cent of
participating organisations have properly established the philosophy.
Repenning and Sterman (2001) propose that some organisations employ
business initiatives as a fad or fashion and state that:
Although the number of tools, techniques, and technologies available to
improve operational performance is growing rapidly, on the other hand,
despite dramatic successes in a few companies most efforts to use them
fail to produce significant results (Repenning & Sterman, 2001).
2.1.5 Possible reasons for lean implementation failures
There are numerous beliefs as to the reasons causing the high failure rates of
lean manufacture implementations.
Some of the thinking includes that
organisations need a crisis or “burning bridge” to motivate the adoption of lean
(Lewis, 2001). This view is supported by Lebow (1999) who affirms that
companies rarely pursue lean manufacturing unless they feel some pain.
16
Bicheno (1999) strongly believes in a total lean enterprise where the customer,
strategy and people are all integrated, beyond only the manufacturing process.
A review of management in the mid-nineties identifies some significant issues
pertaining to change management, namely the
−
colossal efforts made to change the way organisations operate;
−
astonishing degree of failure that accompanied all but a handful of
attempts; and
−
radical aversion to risk taking that appears to typify most organisations
(Grint, 1997).
The skills necessary to transact a major change initiative could be lacking,
especially as this skill set is significantly different to what is needed to effectively
manage daily operational issues.
Many organisations approach the
implementation of major changes as normal operational interventions and do
not recognise the associated risk of not taking cognisance of the different skills
and approaches necessary for successful change. Duck (1993) states that:
The COO at a large corporation told him that when it comes to handling
the most complex operational problem, he has all the skills he needs.
But when it comes to managing change, the model he uses for
operational issues doesn’t work (Duck, 1993).
Another point of view pertaining to major changes is that of Hirschhorn (2002)
who believe that the low rate of success has more to do with execution, rather
than fundamental conception. Although business leaders endeavour to take all
the necessary precautions to ensure that major change will be successful,
something is likely to go wrong. This notion is supported by Kotter and
Schlesinger (1979):
No matter how good a job one does in selecting a change strategy and
tactics, something unexpected will eventually occur during
implementation. Only by carefully monitoring the process can one
identify the unexpected in a timely fashion and react to it intelligently
(Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979).
17
There is little research to support the idea that organisations know in advance
whether a major change program will be successful or not. More often than not,
it is the management team that makes the decision to proceed with, or reject a
major change initiative (Lucey, 2009b). This observation is further supported by
the reality of management being optimistic most of the time. Menzias and
Starbuck (2003) identified 11 variables that influence managers’ perceptions:
−
Perception depends on the subject matter and people are more likely to
notice more recent events, larger changes and more dramatic events;
they are also better equipped to perceive sounds, symbols or objects
than abstract concepts.
−
Human perceptual systems vary significantly across people; some
people hear, see or remember more accurately.
−
Increased experience makes people both more likely to notice some
stimuli and less likely to notice other stimuli.
−
Training and job assignments increase experience in one domain, even
as they withhold experience in other domains, for instance, a marketing
person and a production person.
−
People place incoming data in the context of experience to facilitate
understanding and memory is important for the perceptions of variables
as they are observed over time.
−
A manager’s interpersonal skills and demeanour may encourage
colleagues and subordinates to be either more honest or to conceal the
truth; some managers want to find out what is wrong, while others want
to attribute blame.
−
Organisational information systems collect and disseminate some kinds
of information, while ignoring or obscuring other information.
18
−
Certain cultures focus attention on certain phenomena and ignore others.
−
Senior managers at the top of hierarchies perceive different
organisational phenomena than middle or junior managers.
−
Some businesses operate in a closed environment where published
information has little relevance, while others, such as trade associations
and government, publish lots of information.
−
Some business environments are much more volatile than others, which
means that data becomes obsolete more quickly (Menzias & Starbuck,
2003).
Alexander (1985) surveyed 93 private sector companies to determine the
implementation problems most frequently experienced in the implementation of
strategic decisions. The most common potential problems were identified from
a literature review and were corroborated by the results obtained from personal
interviews with chief executive officers. The 10 most common implementation
problems are summarised in Table 2.1, according to their average ratings.
Table 2.1: Ten most frequently occurring implementation problems
Problem
%
1
Implementation took longer than planned
76
2
Major unanticipated problems occurred during implementation
74
3
Co-ordination of implementation activities was not effective enough
66
4
Competing activities and crises distracted attention from implementation
64
5
Skills and abilities of implementation team were lacking
63
6
Training and instructions to lower level employees was not good enough
62
7
Uncontrollable factors in the external environment affected the change
60
8
Leadership and direction by department managers was not good enough
59
9
Key implementation tasks and activities were not defined in enough detail
56
10
Information systems used to monitor implementation were not adequate
56
Source: Adapted from Alexander, 1985
19
Additional research focused on three groups of professionals, each comprising
three people. The groups consisted of successful consultants, academics and
authors, all with appropriate exposure to business and change management.
The raw data of the surveys was shared and validated with the interviewees,
after which 15 reasons for failure of major change initiatives were identified.
Lewin’s three-stage model (1947) was used to categorise the 15 failure reasons
into the categories of “unfreezing”, “changing” and “refreezing”
(Lucey,
Bateman & Hines, 2005). The main reasons for change transformation failing
during the “unfreezing” stage are depicted in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Why major change transformation fail in the unfreeze stage
Reasons for Failure
1
2
3
4
5
6
Lack of clear executive vision and leadership.
Lack of effective communication strategy.
Failure to create a sense of urgency.
Poor consultation with all stake holders.
Failure to recognise company history and culture.
Change ambition can outstrip reality.
Consultants
1
2
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Academics
1
2
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
Writers
2
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Adapted from Lucey, Bateman & Hines, 2005
It is apparent from Table 2.2 that there is broad agreement between the three
groups on the first four reasons. The consultants, academics, and writers
respectively scored 11, eight and 10, out of 12, for the first four reasons. This
demonstrates the broad agreement between the three groups. Considering the
first and second reasons, across the three groups, it is notable that it scored
eight out of a possible nine. This is indicative of the importance of this aspect
for successful change transformation. It would be fair to observe that there is
very strong agreement between the three groups on the first two reasons, whilst
reasons three and four are signified b a strong agreement.
Lucey (2008b) concludes that the right style of leadership is paramount and that
transition should be led by people who are people-centric and who inspires
trust, challenges the status quo and has a clear vision and a long-term
perspective. His view is supported by Kotter (1996) and Bennis (1994) who
stress the importance of major changes being led, rather than managed.
20
The importance of a clear and regular communications strategy to support the
urgency of the change initiative, prior to the commencement of the change
process, is paramount. Consultation with all stakeholders prior to the start of
the change process is paramount to getting everyone engaged in the change
process. The research is indicative of a general lack of preparation by
organisations in this phase, thereby resulting in employees generally not
becoming sufficiently engaged for the change to commence (Lucey, 2008b).
These findings are supported by Capelli and Rogovsky (1996), Dimancescu et
al, (1997) and Standard and Davis (2000). They argue that the primary inhibitor
to change is not so much the change itself, but rather the manner in which it is
implemented and communicated. Allen (2000), O'Corrbui and Corboy (1999)
and Sanchez and Perez (2000) agree that the important part of change is the
process of change management.
The reasons for failure identified concerned with the “changing” stage are
summarised in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Why major change transformation fail in the change stage
Reasons for Failure
7
8
9
10
11
12
Absence of dedicated and fully resourced implementation team.
Lack of Structured methodology and project management.
Failure to plan and manage quick wins.
Failure to fully mobilise change champions.
Lack of sympathetic HR policies.
Using an outsider to transact the change.
Consultants
1
2
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
Academics
1
2
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
Writers
2
3
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Adapted from Lucey et al, 2005
Table 2.3 indicates there is a similar score for each of the three groups in this
stage. The consultants, academics and writers respectively scored six, seven
and eight out of 18. Considering the potential reasons, it is apparent that there
is agreement that the “lack of structured methodology and project management”
is important. This is closely followed by a “failure to fully mobilise change
champions”, “absence of dedicated and fully resourced implementation team”
and “lack of sympathetic HR policies”.
21
The importance of a fully resourced implementation team that employs a
structured methodology within a good project management framework is of
paramount importance, closely followed by the quick mobilisation of “change
champions”. The importance of adopting a sympathetic human resource (HR)
policy should not be underestimated in the change process. Lucey (2008b)
further comments that it seems as if organisations consider the “change” phase
as the start of a major lean transformation; however, employees should already
be engaged at this stage to facilitate a successful transition.
The reasons for failure during the refreeze stage is summarised in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4: Why major change transformation fail in the refreeze stage
Reasons for Failure
13 Failure to monitor and evaluate the outcome.
14 Failure to continually recognise and celebrate success.
15 Failure to engage employees.
Consultants
1
2
3
X
X
X
Academics
1
2
3
X
X
Writers
2
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
The three groups respectively scored three, two and six out of nine for the
“refreeze” phase. This could be indicative of some disagreement between the
participating groups. Considering the specific reasons, it appears that “failure to
monitor and evaluate the outcome” is considered most relevant. This is
followed by “failure to engage employees” and “failure to continually recognise
and celebrate success”.
The importance ascribed to monitoring the outcome against appropriate key
performance indicators may be reflective of the fact that organisations are
concerned about the results, rather than the engagement of the employees at
the start of the process. The “refreeze” phase is arguably the most important of
all the phases as it involves the consolidation of all the changes processes and,
therefore, possibly has the greatest impact on achieving the desired benefits.
This phase seems to be neglected as organisations normally views the
“change” phase as the end of the change process, thus resulting in failure to
render the changes permanent.
22
According to Lucey (2008b), research confirms that companies do not,
generally, spend the necessary time at the beginning of the change process to
assess if their staff is “change ready”. He further hints that it appears as if
organisations tend to focus more on the first two phases and neglects the third
phase.
Table 2.5 provides a comparison of the top 10 reasons cited by Lucey (2008b),
the eight reasons identified by Kotter (1995) and the top 10 change
implementation problems proposed by Alexander (1985) to assess the
similarities between the findings proposed by the authors.
Table 2.5: Comparison of implementation failure reasons
Reason for failure
Lack of clear executive vision and leadership
Lack of effective communications strategy
Failure to create and communicate a sense of
urgency
Poor consultation with stakeholders
Lack of structured methodology and project
management
Failure to evaluate and monitor the outcome
Failure to fully mobilise ‘change champions’
Failure to engage employees in the change
process
Lack of dedicated & fully resourced
implementation team
Lack of sympathetic and supportive HR
policies
Rating by Lucey
(2008)
Rating by Kotter
(1995)
Rating by
Alexander (1985)
1
2
3
4
8
6
3
1
9
4
Not identified
7
5
5
1,2, 3,4
6
7
Not identified
6
10
Not identified
8
8
Not identified
9
2
5
10
7
Not identified
Source: Adapted from Lucey, 2008b
The 10 reasons cited by Lucey (2008b) are ranked according to importance in
ascending order. It is evident that the top four reasons identified by Lucey
(2008b) correlates with three of the top four reasons identified by Kotter (1995).
A similar correlation exists between the fifth to eighth reason of Lucey (2008b)
and the fifth, seventh and eighth reason of Kotter (1995). The problems
proposed by Alexander (1985) focus solely on implementation and his first four
reasons can, therefore, be attributed to Lucey’s fifth reason (2008b). This
suggests that the top four reasons proposed by Alexander (1985) fall within the
23
top five reasons proposed by Lucey (2008b), thereby substantiating these
findings.
2.1.6 Lean as a philosophy and culture
Lean is often viewed as a process of applying lean tools and introducing some
of the principles, rather than a philosophy or long-term strategic direction the
organisation chooses to embark on. Bhasin and Burcher (2006), Liker (1996)
and Moore (2001) assert that lean should be viewed as a philosophy. Elliott
(2001) insists that lean needs to be lived, breathed and mentored in all its
aspects; it needs to be a mindset that directs how one looks at the organisation
or process. Seddon (2005) confirms this by affirming that the key to successful
implementation is the philosophy behind the tools. Hancock and Zaycko (1998)
are of the view that all organisational subsystems need to change for an
organisation to fully realise the benefits of lean. This view is supported by Turfa
(2003) who contends that the aim of lean is to ultimately become part of the way
of doing business; it is a journey that never ends. Karlson and Ahlstrom (1996)
supports the view state that the “important point to note, however, is that lean
should be seen as a direction, rather than as a state to be reached after a
certain time” (Karlson & Ahlstrom, 1996).
Allen (2000) agrees with this argument and claims:
Lean manufacturing is a system approach. Each approach builds on the
previous one, anchoring the systems as a whole ...introducing a
scattering of lean tools that are not properly used ...simply bewilders the
workforce (Allen, 2000).
After all, the TPS was not just a production system, it was a total management
system (Ohno, 1988).
Organisational culture can be described as the shared beliefs, values, norms,
and expectations of organisational members (Schneider, Brief & Guzzo, 1996).
A lean philosophy is not easy to implement and corporate culture has been
blamed for numerous lean failures (McNabb & Sepic 1995; Utley, Westbrook &
Turner, 1997).
24
Results from a survey conducted by the Manufacturer Magazine in 2002
(Lucey, 2008a) detail the barriers to lean implementations in the United
Kingdom, the single most important barrier recorded as that of organisational
culture. Culture and staff attitude features as the third most significant barrier,
thus signifying the overall importance of company culture in a lean
transformation. The results from this survey confirm the importance of
organisational culture in lean transformation. This is supported by Kettinger and
Grover (1995) who argue for the importance of cultural readiness to successful
improvement initiatives. Bartezzagni (1999) and Henderson, Larco and Martin
(1999) agree that the right culture, as well as an alignment in the way that
members of the organisation think and behave, should be in place to realise the
full benefits of lean. Vasilash (2000) emphasises this by pointing out that better
improvements are possible when people share the same beliefs. These
arguments support the idea that having an organisational culture established is
conducive to facilitate and assist with the lean implementation process.
Bhasin and Burcher (2006) propose a broad guideline, specific to organisational
change requirements and compliance, that impact on an organisation’s culture.
This guideline may serve for reflection during lean transformation, thereby
supporting the lean transformation, and include a number of aspects:
−
Make decisions at the lowest level, assessed by the number of
organisation levels.
−
Forward a definite clarity of vision, an indication of what the organisation
believes it will look like once the transformation is complete (Hines,
Jones & Rich, 1998).
−
Ensure there is a strategy of change whereby the organisation
communicates how the goals will be achieved.
25
−
Assign responsibilities initially within the pilot programme and ultimately
within the whole organisation whereby it is also evident who is
championing the program.
−
Develop supplier relationships based on mutual trust and commitment
that could be assessed by the number of years a relationship has existed
with a supplier and the percentage of procurement value purchased
under long-term supplier agreements.
−
Nurture a learning environment for which indices, such as training hours
per employee, can provide an approximate barometer.
−
Systematically and continuously focus on the customer. The number of
projects in which a customer was involved may serve as evidence of
such focus (Koenigsaecker, 2000).
−
Promote lean leadership at all levels, observed by the number of lean
metrics at all levels.
−
Maintain the challenge of existing processes through factors including,
for example, the number of repeat problems and customer assistance to
suppliers.
−
Make a conscientious effort to maximise stability in a changing
environment. This may be achieved through reducing schedule
changes, program restructures and procurement quantity changes.
−
Assess the fraction of an organisation’s employees operating under lean
conditions.
−
Observe the proportion of an organisation’s departments pursuing lean.
−
Consider that lean requires a long-term commitment (Bhasin & Burcher,
2006).
26
2.1.7 Lean leadership and management
The role of leadership in lean transformation should not be underestimated.
This is confirmed by academics who agree that leadership (Found & Harvey,
2006; Lucey, Bateman & Hines, 2005; Van Dun et al, 2008) and commitment
(Found & Harvey, 2006; Heymans, 2002) play a pivotal role in lean transition
and its future sustainability. This argument is echoed by Liker (1996) who
claims that the organisational leadership role in lean transition is an area that
requires attention.
It appears to be difficult to find a clear definition of what leadership means.
Bryman (1992) proposed the following broad definition to facilitate
understanding:
−
the trait approach where leadership ability is a natural characteristic of
the person;
−
the style approach that involves the behaviour of the leader that, in turn,
determines leadership efficacy; and
−
the contingency approach that is more concerned with the situation and
which determines effective leadership (Bryman, 1992).
To add to the understanding of leadership, cognisance must also be taken of
the difference between leadership and management, an aspect that creates
further confusion. Bennis (1994) proposes typical characteristics of, and
differences between leaders and managers, as summarised in Table 2.6.
27
Table 2.6: Difference between leaders and managers
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
Manager
Administers
Is a copy
Maintains
Focuses on systems and structure
Relies on control
Has a short-range view
Asks how and when
Has his eye on the bottom line
Imitates
Accepts the status quo
Classic good soldier
Does things right
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
Leader
Innovates
Is an original
Develops
Focuses on people
Inspires trust
Has a long-range perspective
Asks why
Has his eye on the horizon
Originates
Challenges the status
Is his own person
Does the right thing
Source: Adapted from Bennis, 1994
Generic definitions of leadership, as proposed by academics, cover a range of
perspectives. Leadership is about providing direction and creating a vision for
the future, setting strategies for achieving the vision and aligning, influencing,
motivating, inspiring and energising people in pursuance of such a vision.
Conversely, management is more concerned with controlling, problem-solving
and delivering short-term results, as demanded by the various stakeholders
(Lucey et al, 2005).
Hines, Lemming, Jones, Cousins and Rich (2000) agree that lean
manufacturing requires leaders with clarity of vision. Moore (2003) concurs with
Bennis (1994) that leaders should encourage change and create an
environment that promotes change, whereas managers should implement and
stabilise change. This notion is further supported by Found, Van Dun and Fei
(2009) who suggest that leaders are there to:
Foster change and create an environment where change is the norm,
whereas managers stabilise the organisation and assure that the
changes are well implemented. In fact, behaviour of both managers and
leaders are necessary to achieve excellence and different approaches
may be needed at different times, depending upon the specific stage of
the lean transformation process (Found et al, 2009).
Womack (2008) states that it is the responsibility of the leaders and managers
of organisations to ensure that the purpose and processes are clearly defined
28
and that people are engaged. Pullin (2002) feels strongly that lean leadership
be promoted at all levels of the organisation to secure the lean philosophy,
whereas Liker and Meier (2006) believe that leaders needs to be develop to live
the system from the top to bottom. Kotter (1999) describes the difference
between management and leadership as:
Management is not leadership, it is more about controlling and problem
solving, and producing the short-term results expected by the various
stakeholders. Leadership is about establishing direction, developing a
vision of the future and setting strategies for making the changes needed
to achieve that vision.
Leadership is about aligning people,
communicating the direction by words and deeds to all those whose cooperation may be needed. Influencing the creation of teams and
coalitions that understand the vision and accept their roles in the
implementation of strategy. Leadership is about motivating, inspiring,
and energising people to overcome major political, bureaucratic and
resource barriers to change by satisfying basic but unfulfilled needs.
Leadership produces change, often dramatic change and may produce
extremely useful change such as new products and new approaches to
labour relations” (Kotter, 1999).
Emiliani (2003) suggests that effective lean leadership involves coaching and
leadership behaviour that cultivates participation and employee empowerment,
within certain boundaries. Found et al (2009) advocate that lean leadership is
all about fostering a continuous learning environment for lean leaders. Liker
(2004) supports this concept and talks about the lean learning enterprise.
2.1.8 Lean human resource implications
The Toyota DNA consists of people and product value streams, people are the
heart and soul of the “Toyota Way” (Liker, 2008). This idea is substantiated by
Ohno (1988) who insists that, whilst the purpose of the TPS was to increase
production efficiency and eliminate waste, it included an equally important
respect for humanity. Philips (2002) states that certain human skills, such as
communication, problem-solving, teamwork and leadership debate, are
fundamental to success in lean implementation and that people and cultural
change are the biggest reasons for lean implementation failures. Allen (1997)
supports this view on communication.
29
Organisations make broad statements in terms of people being their greatest
assets, but most only pay lip service to this statement (Needy, Bidanda &
Arinyawongrat, 2002). This suggested lack of attention to the human element is
substantiated by Bidanda, Ariyawongrat, Needy and Normam (2001), Chung
(1996), Lathin and Mitchell (2001b, 2001c), Prabhu (1992) and Siekman (2000).
There is a debate among researchers about the possible impact of lean
manufacturing on worker health (Landsbergis et al, 1998). It is suggested that
lean production intensifies work pace and demands in the automotive industry
and that these demands result in adverse health conditions, such as
musculoskeletal injuries (Landsbergis, Cahill & Schnall, 1999). One viewpoint
suggests that the short work cycle of the TPS is considered a major risk factor
for work-related injuries (Genaidy & Karwowski, 2003); however, there are also
arguments to the contrary (Landsbergis et al, 1998).
2.2
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
In today's competitive environment companies need to ensure that they
acknowledge, in both philosophy and practice, the importance of the manager in
retaining employees. A highly engaged workforce is the sign of a healthy
organisation, irrespective of size, geographical location or economic sector.
Clifton (2002), Chief Executive Officer of the Gallup Organisation states:
The success of your organisation does not depend on your
understanding of economics, or organisational development, or
marketing.
It depends, quite simply, on your understanding of
psychology: how each individual employee connects with your company
and how each individual employee connects with your customers
(Clifton, 2002).
Rephrasing Clifton’s statement amounts to the necessity to harness the power
of human nature by engaging all staff (Lucey et al, 2005).
The importance and concept of employee engagement is neither very well
known, nor appreciated. The term employee engagement may sound new;
however, it has long existed as a core management practice (Rama Devi,
2009). Macey and Schneider (2008) agree with the theory in that they argue:
30
The notion of employee engagement is a relatively new one, one that
has been heavily marketed by HR consulting firms who offer advice on
how it can be created and leveraged (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
Frank, Finnegan and Taylor (2004) advocate that engaging employees is “one
of the greatest challenges facing organisations in this decade and beyond”.
Welbourne (2007) feels that it is potentially one of the “hottest topics in
management”, although it is still a relatively new area of research, according to
Saks (2006). An individual can accept an unwanted role and be forced to
perform it, but cannot be forced to engage and it is important, therefore, to note
that engagement is voluntary and natural (Souza Wildermuth & Pauken, 2008).
2.2.1 Defining engagement
The term engagement has its origins in role theory studies conducted by
Goffman (1961). Role theory studies focus on the various roles that individuals
occupy in society, social expectations and behavioural boundaries attributed to
these roles (Bailey & Yost, 2007). Goffman (1961) defines engagement as the
“spontaneous involvement in the role and the visible investment of attention and
muscular effort”. Kahn (1990) describes engagement as the “harnessing of
organisation members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people
employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during
role performance”.
Conversely, disengagement is the “uncoupling of selves from work roles; in
disengagement, people withdraw and defend themselves physically, cognitively,
or emotionally during role performances” Kahn (1990).
According to Schmitt and Klimoski (1991), a construct is a “concept that has
been deliberately created or adopted for a scientific purpose”. Little and Little
(2006) explain this definition of a construct as being similar to inferring that a
person may possess a certain construct, such as maturity, by observing a set of
behaviours. By merely attaching a name to a collection of survey items does
not make it a construct, the measure must be validated by comparing, and
contrasting the construct to similar and different constructs, to demonstrate that
31
it is related to those constructs in theoretically predictable ways (Little & Little,
2006).
There appears to be a problem with the term employee engagement in terms of
defining and validating the construct thereof, resulting in users interpreting it in
different ways (Endres & Mancheno-Smoak, 2008). Macey and Schneider
(2008) substantiates this notion and reports that industry and academia appear
to differ with respect to the definition of engagement. Industry focuses on
engagement as an outcome, rather that defining and measuring psychological
states. The organisational view of engagement is focused on outcomes, such
as performance, retention and commitment, whilst academia is more concerned
with the psychological construct and the measurement thereof (Wefald &
Downey, 2009b). The commercial use of the term employee engagement is
associated with organisational commitment, values and vision. This is in
contrast to the academic community that associates it more with the concepts of
job involvement and job commitment (Brown 1996; Christian & Slaughter, 2007;
Saks, 2006).
The problems with the construct of employee engagement have led to
numerous definitions, are summarised below:
−
Employee engagement is when an employee is willing to put in noncompulsory effort beyond the minimum requirements to do a job, in the
form of additional time, brainpower or energy (Rama Devi, 2009).
−
Engaged employees will consistently produce better results (Robinson,
Perryman & Hayday, 2004).
−
Employee engagement is the willingness and ability of employees to help
the organisation succeed by providing discretionary effort on a continual
basis (Towers Perrin (2005).
32
−
Employee engagement is “the individual’s involvement and satisfaction
with, as well as enthusiasm for work” (Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002).
−
Lucey et al (2005) interpret the Gallup Engagement Index as “how each
individual employee connects with their customer”.
−
Engagement is the extent to which people value, enjoy and believe in
what they do and is a measure similar to that of employee satisfaction
and loyalty (Wellins, Bernthal & Phelps, n.d.).
−
Engagement is a positive attitude held by the employee towards the
organisation and its values. The employee is aware of the business
context and works with colleagues to improve the performance of the job
for the benefit of the organisation (Robinson et al, 2004).
−
Engagement is the employee’s willingness and ability to assist the
organisation in succeeding by offering continual and sustained
discretionary effort (Towers, 2005).
−
Engagement is a positive attitude towards the organisation and its
values, business context awareness and co-worker collusion to improve
job performance for the benefit of the organisation (Robinson et al,
2004).
−
Engagement is evidenced by a person who is enthusiastic and fully
involved in their work, who cares about the organisation and willingly
offers discretionary effort to pursue organisational success. Such
engagement overlaps with commitment and organisational citizenship
(Seijts & Crim, 2006).
−
Employee engagement is “the illusive force that motivates employees to
higher levels of performance”. This “coveted energy” is similar to
commitment to the organisation, job ownership and pride and results in
33
more discretionary effort, passion and excitement, commitment to
execution and the bottom line. It is a combination of commitment,
loyalty, productivity, ownership and the “feelings or attitudes that
employees have towards their jobs and organisations” (Wellins &
Concelman, 2005).
−
The concept of engaged employees is synonymous with that of
committed employees (Fleming, Coffman & Harter, 2005).
−
The Gallup Organisation (2005) associates employee engagement with
the concept of customer engagement that has the dimensions of
confidence, integrity, pride and passion.
−
Maslach and Leiter (1997) associates the characteristics of employee
engagement with energy, involvement and efficacy in that “engaged
individuals are assumed to have a sense of energetic and effective
connection with their work activities, and they see themselves as able to
deal completely with the demands of work”.
−
Engagement is a persistent and positive affective motivational state of
fulfilment in employees and is characterised by vigour, dedication and
absorption (Schaufeli, Salanove, Gonzalez-Roma & Bakker, 2002).
A commonality between all the various definitions of engagement is the three
conceptual components of cognition, affect and behaviour. Components of
cognition include terms such as beliefs, values and intellectual commitment,
whereas descriptors of affect would be enthusiasm, satisfaction, affect, emotion
and a positive state of mind. Behaviour includes engagement components,
such as discretionary effort, satisfaction, profitability, organisational citizenship,
retention, role expansion, proactive behaviour, and individual well-being
(Zigarmi, Nimon, Houson, Witt & Diehl, 2009).
34
Lewin (Lucey, 2009b) contends that employee engagement is a function of the
person and the environment and that this serves as a noteworthy definition of
behaviour toward defining employee engagement.
There is an overlap in the definitions of job satisfaction and employee
engagement; however, they are separate constructs. The main difference is
that employee engagement emphasises the cognitive aspect of job tasks, whilst
job satisfaction is concerned with affect (Wefald & Downey, 2009a).
2.2.2 Industry versus academic approach
The difference between the industry and academic view of the concept of
engagement may be ascribed to a difference in “thought worlds” (Cascio, 2007).
While the same name is given to the different measures of engagement within
and between industry and the academic community, the definitions and items
for the various measures are significantly different. Literature comparing the
two types of measures appears to be unavailable, thus it is unclear as to how
the two types are related. Some of the conceptual connections include that of
job satisfaction, commitment and involvement. This generally forms part of the
definition and items for industry measures. The academic community have
found these same constructs to be related to the engagement measure
(Christian & Slaughter, 2007). The structure, definitions and methods, as well
as the state versus trait aspect of job engagement, vary both within and
between industry and academic approaches (Wefald & Downey, 2009a).
Potentially the most popular and well-known industry approach was developed
by the Gallup Organisation (2005). Vance (2006) review a variety of
engagement programs and summarises the industry’s approach to engagement
by listing the 10 most common measures found across the programs reviewed:
−
pride in employer;
−
satisfaction with employer;
−
job satisfaction;
−
opportunity to perform well at challenging work;
35
−
recognition and positive feedback for one’s contributions;
−
personal support from one’s supervisor;
−
effort above and beyond the minimum;
−
understanding the link between one’s job and the organisation’s mission;
−
prospects for future growth with one’s employer; and
−
intention to stay with one’s employer (Vance, 2006).
The most frequently cited academic engagement measurement was developed
by Schaufeli et al (2002) who consider engagement a persistent and positive
affective motivational state of fulfilment in employees and as characterised by
vigour, dedication and absorption. Vigour is seen as high energy, resilience, a
willingness to invest effort on the job, ability not to be easily fatigued and
persistence in the face of difficulties. Dedication is characterised by strong
involvement in work, enthusiasm and a sense of pride and inspiration.
Absorption is characterised by a pleasant state of being immersed in one’s
work, time passing quickly and being unable to detach from the job. Schaufeli
et al (2002) avow that:
Rather than a momentary and specific state, engagement refers to a
more persistent and pervasive affective cognitive state that is not
focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behaviour
(Schaufeli et al, 2002).
Too little attention has been given to endeavour integrating the two different
constructs that are being developed by industry and academia. The methods
and measures of the two “thought worlds” should be integrated, according to
Cascio (2007).
2.2.3 Importance of employee engagement
Employee engagement has become an important metric in measuring the
impact of human capital in organisations, as well as the integration of employee
satisfaction, commitment, motivation, involvement, job design, rewards and the
psychological contract, as a whole, with human resource management. The
relationship between people and performance, as well as the importance to
understand and manage talent, is being acknowledged more widely. It appears
36
that employee engagement plays a role at individual, team and organisational
levels (McBain, 2007).
An engaged employee is conscious of the business context and work with coworkers to improve performance for the benefit of the organisation. In return,
the organisation must develop and foster this two-way relationship (Rama Devi,
2009). Different categories, or levels, of engagement exist. The Gallup
Consulting Group (Vazirani 2007, p. 4) defined three levels of employee
engagement:
−
“Engaged employees” are “builders”. They want to know the desired
expectations for their role so they can meet and exceed these. They are
naturally curious about their company and their place in it. They perform
at consistently high levels and daily want to use their talents and
strengths at work. They work with passion, drive innovation and move
their organisation forward.
−
“Not engaged employees” tend to concentrate on tasks, rather than the
goals and outcomes they are expected to accomplish. They want to be
told what to do so they can do it and say they have finished. They focus
on accomplishing tasks, versus achieving an outcome. Employees who
are not engaged tend to feel their contributions are being overlooked and
their potential is not being tapped. They often feel this way due to nonproductive relationships with their managers or colleagues.
−
"Actively disengaged" employees are the "cave dwellers”. They are
consistently against virtually everything. They are not just unhappy at
work, they act out their unhappiness and sow seeds of negativity at every
opportunity. Every day, actively disengaged workers undermine what
their engaged co-workers accomplish. As workers increasingly rely on
each other to generate products and services, the problems and tensions
that are fostered by actively disengaged workers can cause great
damage to an organisation's functioning (Vazirani, 2007).
37
Towers Perrin (2008), another industry participant, classifies the categories of
engagement into four levels, explained as:
−
engaged - those giving full discretionary effort;
−
enrolled - the partly-engaged, with higher scores on the rational and
motivational dimensions, but less emotionally connected;
−
disenchanted - the partly-disengaged, with lower scores on all three
components of engagement, especially the emotional connection; and
−
disengaged - those who have disconnected rationally, emotionally and
motivationally (Towers, 2008).
The Gallup Consulting Group (Lucey et al 2005, p. 11) developed an
engagement index in 2000 toward determining the extent of disengaged
employees (“emotional unemployed”) in the employed population. Statistics
from a national benchmark conducted by Gallup in 2001 and reported on by
Lucey et al (2005), as summarised in Table 2.7, show alarming facts.
Table 2.7: National index of employee engagement
Country
United States
Chile
Canada
United Kingdom
Germany
Japan
France
Engaged (% )
Not engaged (% )
Actively disengaged (% )
30
25
24
17
16
9
9
54
62
60
63
69
72
63
16
13
16
20
15
19
28
This poor state of affairs is confirmed by various research findings:
−
Development Dimensions International (DDI) has found that only 19 per
cent of employees are engaged (Wellins, Bernthal & Phelps, n.d.);
−
the Corporate Executive Board found in a worldwide study of 50 000
employees that only 11 per cent of employees are engaged (Corporate
Executive Board, 2004); and
−
Towers Perrin (2008) conducted a study across 18 countries and 90 000
employees and found that 21 per cent of employees are engaged.
38
These statistics confirm that, on average, only 20 per cent of employees are
engaged. This is indicative of the unlocked opportunity that resides with
employees.
2.2.4 Organisational and individual benefits
The benefits of employee engagement render positive benefits for organisations
and individuals alike. Organisations cannot afford to ignore those benefits that
may prove a major differentiating component between themselves and the
competition in today’s competitive environment.
Various research findings confirm the association between business
performance and employee engagement levels:
−
An organisation’s ability to manage employee engagement is directly
related to the ability of the business to achieve high performance levels
and business results (Vazirani, 2007).
−
Employee engagement has a statistical relationship with productivity,
profitability, employee retention, safety and customer satisfaction
(Buckingham & Coffman, 1999).
−
Significant relationships have been confirmed between employee
engagement and improvements in customer satisfaction, productivity,
financial profits and turnover, as well as improved safety performance
(Harter et al, 2002).
−
The link between engagement and performance is confirmed in that
“employees who feel vital and strong, and who are enthusiastic about
their work, show better in-role and extra-role performance” and, as a
consequence, “realise better financial results, and have more satisfied
clients and customers” (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter & Taris, 2008).
39
−
Evidence seems to support considerable engagement-related benefits
for organisations (Saks, 2006).
Statistics regarding benefits for organisations through engaged employees, as
reported by the Gallup Consulting Group (Lucey et al 2005, p. 11), confirm prior
academic research findings. These also highlight the impact that actively
disengaged employees have at all levels of the business and which collectively
accounts for the negative forces present within an organisation. The most
noteworthy finding is that actively disengaged employees account for most of
the waste in terms of lost workdays, high safety costs, high levels of employee
turnover, low productivity and customer defection.
The relationship between employee engagement and business performance, as
a whole, is quantified by measuring the total cost of disengaged employees.
This measure has been termed “emotional economics”. The annual
disengagement cost for the United States of America is estimated at between
$254 and $363 billion (Lucey et al, 2005).
Gallup estimates annual
disengagement cost to be $64 billion in the United Kingdom and $232 billion in
Japan (Wellins et al, n.d.).
Towers Perrin (2008) surveyed 50 global organisations over a one and threeyear period and correlated employee engagement with financial results. It is
evident that companies with high engagement levels deliver better financial
performance or, conversely, those organisations with high levels of
disengagement perform worse, as depicted in Figure 2.2.
40
Figure 2.2: Affect of engagement on financial performance
Source: Adapted from Towers, 2008
Psychological wellbeing is associated with important individual outcomes,
including a range of mental and physical health issues, whilst lower levels of
psychological wellbeing may be associated with poorer health. Research has
shown that the level of physical wellbeing directly correlates with individual
performance (Robertson & Cooper, 2010).
Personal benefits enrich the lives of individuals and holistically improve it. Such
individual benefits include enthusiasm, better physical health, happiness and
being of greater value to the employer (Loehr, 2005). These benefits are
generally confirmed and further characterised by Bakker et al (2008) who claim
that engaged employees often
−
experience positive emotions, such as happiness, joy and enthusiasm;
−
experience improved psychological and physical health;
−
create their own job and personal resources, such as support from
others; and
−
transfer their engagement to others (personal and organisational benefit)
(Bakker et al, 2008).
Kotter (1993) confirms the benefits and challenges presented by engaged and
actively disengaged employees to the organisation. Kotter is of the belief that a
strong culture, subject to norms and values, promotes good performance in a
41
changing competitive environment and that this will result in a positive impact
on the organisational bottom line (Kotter, 1993).
It is plausible that
organisational performance is a result of combined individual performance. The
cross pollination of engagement among individuals, thus, ultimately improves
organisational performance (Bakker et al., 2008).
2.2.5 Drivers of employee engagement
Reviewing literature, it is apparent that a magnitude of drivers has been
identified as promoting employee engagement. It seems there is no defined list
of drivers to promote employee engagement within organisations. Robinson et
al (2004) have found numerous views amongst different authors, mainly in
consultancy literature, regarding the drivers of engagement and. They
concluded that “there is no easy answer as far as engagement is concerned –
no simple pulling of one or two levers to raise the engagement levels”
(Robinson et al, 2004).
This variation in drivers has been confirmed in another study with notable
similarities in the findings. Lockwood (2007) proposes that engagement is
concerned with the:
−
culture of the organisation;
−
organisational leadership;
−
quality of communication;
−
style of management;
−
trust and respect;
−
organisation’s reputation; and
−
employee’s emotional commitment to the organisation and job,
specifically the “extent to which the employee derives enjoyment,
meaning, pride, and inspiration from something or someone in the
organisation” (Lockwood, 2007).
In another attempt to identify the drivers of engagement, Robertson-Smith and
Markwick (2009) identify the seven drivers most frequently cited in research:
42
−
the nature of the employee’s work has a clear influence on their level of
engagement and it is important to have challenging, creative and varied
work that utilises old and new skills;
−
the perception that the work undertaken is important and that it has a
clear purpose and meaning;
−
having equal opportunities for, and access to, career growth and
development and training opportunities is considered important in
enabling employees to engage with the organisation;
−
receiving timely recognition and rewards is a key driver, salary is
important but more as a disengager than an engager;
−
building good relationships between co-workers is important, especially
the relationship between employee and manager; this critical relationship
needs to be a reciprocal one of making time for, and listening to one
another;
−
employees may engage in an organisation if they can understand the
organisation’s values and goals, as well as how their own role
contributes to these; and
−
leaders and managers who inspire confidence in individuals, giving them
autonomy to make decisions with clear goals and accountability, are
perceived as engaging (Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009).
In addition to the drivers identified by various authors, as summarised above,
Pitt-Catsouphes and Matz-Costa (2009) highlights another facet to the question
of engagement drivers. A study of more than 2200 respondents confirms that
the various age groups in organisations have different needs to be satisfied in
order to drive engagement and that respondents may be categorised into the
following generations:
−
generation Y - millennials born after 1980;
−
younger generation X - born between 1972 and 1980;
−
older generation X - born between 1965 and 1971;
−
younger boomers - born between 1955 and 1964; and
−
older boomers and traditionalists - born before 1955 (Pitt-Catsouphes &
Matz-Costa, 2009).
43
The afore-mentioned study (Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2009)
demonstrates the existence of varying levels of engagement across the range
of generations in organisations, as depicted in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3: Average engagement score by generation
Source: Adapted from Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2009
The myriad of drivers of engagement has led McBain (2007) to review literature
and to conduct numerous interviews with leading human resource practitioners
in an endeavour to categorise the various drivers into three clusters, being:
−
the organisation;
−
management and leadership; and
−
the working life (McBain, 2007).
2.2.6 The organisation
The importance of the organisational culture and its affect on employee
engagement must not be under-estimated. Lockwood (2007) confirms this
belief and states that organisational culture contributes to the level of
engagement in the workplace. Individuals want to make a difference are more
engaged when they perceive their organisation to be ethical and trustworthy
(Holbeche, 2004).
Organisational values are important to employee
engagement, thus there must be organisational emphasis on expressing and
promoting values (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006).
Creating an organisational environment where employees feel they are valued
and they make a difference will drive employee engagement. Rama Devi
44
(2009) states that “employees’ belief that they have a future with their employer
is a leading driver of employee commitment, which is a recognised precursor to
engagement”.
a.
Management and leadership
Organisational values are of little importance if they are not lived and visibly
supported by all organisational stakeholders, more specifically by the
organisational leaders. Management in organisations have a crucial role to fulfil
in promoting a clear, shared vision and organisational values, as well as
effective communication and recognition (Sinclair, Robertson‐Smith &
Hennessy, 2008).
Two leadership styles are considered supportive of employee engagement,
namely transformational and authentic leadership styles (Avolio, Gardner,
Walumbwa, Luthans & May, 2004). Transformational leaders inspire followers
to adhere to a common vision, whereas authentic leadership offers the
additional characteristic of being firm in terms of morals, compassion and
service orientation beliefs (Souza Wildermuth & Pauken, 2008).
The role of line management may be considered a critical driver of engagement
as it creates the “micro environment” within which employees operate. Critical
skills for line managers in the development of engagement include
communication (more specifically listening skills), providing feedback,
performance management and giving recognition (McBain, 2007). The
importance of communication is accepted; however Wickens (1995) claims
“there is barely an analysis of problems within an organisation that does not
conclude that we need to improve our communication”. Lucey (2009a)
suggests that communication is often confused with information and argues that
communication needs to be a genuine two-way process where teams, inclusive
of employees and supervisors, communicate in a way that suits them, with
feedback on issues raised, else people cannot “give their hearts and minds
unless they know what is required of them and what they have achieved”
(Lucey, 2009a).
45
2.2.7 The working life
Physical, emotional and psychological resources are prerequisites for engaging
at work (Kahn, 1990). Personal resources can be described as the positive
self-perceived personality of oneself, linked to resiliency, with reference to one’s
sense of ability to successfully control and impact on the environment (Hobfoll,
Johnson, Ennis & Jackson, 2003). This positive self-evaluation of oneself is a
predictor of goal setting, motivation, performance, job satisfaction and other
desired outcomes (Judge, Van Vianen & De Pater, 2004).
Individual availability of an employee at work is a result of personal resources.
A few conditions promote the state of individual personal resource levels:
−
the life-to-work balance in the individual’s life is an important factor in
enabling engagement (Johnson, 2004);
−
sufficient recovery during leisure time promotes an individual’s physical
and psychological well-being and provide people with the resources to be
engaged and to show dedication, vigour and absorption in the workplace
(Sonnentag, 2003); and
−
guarding against over-participation in activities outside of work that may
reduce personal resource levels to such a degree that it diverts energy
and focus away from the work, resulting in reduced individual investment
in the workplace (Kahn, 1990).
Meaningfulness can be described as a feeling of being useful, valuable and
relevant. It is proposed that it provides the employee with a feeling of “return on
investment” for their efforts and energy invested (Kahn, 1990). May, Gilson and
Harter (2004) describe meaningfulness as “the value of a work goal or purpose,
judged in relation to an individual’s own ideals or standards”.
This suggests that it is important that employee tasks are challenging, creative
and varied and that it offers both autonomy and ownership, as well as clearly
defined goals. It should further demand both routine and new skills to facilitate
stimulation (Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009). This notion is supported by
46
Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) who contend that variety, learning opportunities
and autonomy enhance the likeliness of employees to engage in, and make the
work meaningful.
Employees will personally engage in situations perceived as safe, trustworthy,
predictable and clear in terms of behavioural consequences, without fear of
harmful consequences to own self-image, status or career. Open, trusting and
supportive relationships between employees, co-workers and supervision are
claimed to be a driver of safety (Kahn, 1990). Coetzer and Rothman (2007)
suggest that, in providing the employee with a supportive social work
environment, a “positive, fulfilling relationship will exist between the employee
and the employer, the employee will achieve work goals from which the
employer can benefit” (Coetzer & Rothman, 2007).
The relationship between employees and their immediate supervisor or
manager is regarded as important. Dulye and Co. (2006) declare that the
“quality of the relationship that an employee has with his or her immediate
manager is one of the most influential factors driving engagement and
satisfaction” (Dulye, 2006).
A positive relationship between individual
performance and satisfaction with one’s supervisor is confirmed, thereby
supporting this notion (Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton, 2001).
May et al (2004) confirm that job fit and enrichment drives meaningfulness in
the workplace. This is further substantiated by Brief and Nord (1990) who
argue that experiencing a sense of fit between self-concept and work role will
lead to a sense of meaningfulness for employees.
Delivering on expected rewards can be a driver of engagement. Satisfaction
with salary and rewards can be a driver of engagement; however, is more than
often overshadowed by other factors and is typically more likely to prove a
disengager, rather than an engager, when the employee is dissatisfied
(Robinson, Hooker & Hayday, 2007).
This idea is supported in that
47
compensation and offering more benefits are not, by themselves, effective
drivers of employee engagement (Rama Devi, 2009).
The role of developmental opportunities for employees in an organisation in
pursuit of higher levels of engagement is important. This is confirmed by
various studies conducted (Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009). Levinson
(2007) suggests that an organisational culture of people development actively
fosters employee engagement. This correlates with Robinson (2007) who
endorses the notion of employees who have a “personal development plan and
are satisfied with access to development opportunities ... typically have high
engagement levels” (Robinson, 2007). Opportunities for informal training, such
as coaching, correlates with increased levels of engagement in organisations
and must be pursued.
2.3
THE LEAN SUSTAINABILITY ZONE
This research is focused on measuring organisational readiness for embarking
on the lean journey and alternatively measures and predicts the future
sustainability thereof.
A review of prior research has only identified work done by Lucey (2009b) who
developed a measurement tool for the measurement and prediction of the
success of implementing and sustaining a major lean transformation.
2.3.1 Economic sustainability
Economic sustainability is primarily concerned with the concepts of efficiency
and effectiveness of business management in pursuit of extracting profits. Such
profits are invested internally and externally to the firm, thereby maintaining
improvement efforts. Economic sustainability can further be explained as the
ability to extract surplus revenues, greater than that required to operate the firm,
over some period and, in doing so, securing the future of the firm (Found et al,
2006). The point where the flows of revenues and absorption costs meet is the
basic measure that determines economic sustainability (Emery, 1969).
48
Thus, broadly considering the theory of economic sustainability in the context of
managing organisations, it would make sense if one could predict the
sustainability of a major improvement intervention in pursuit of economic
benefits. This suggestion is confirmed by Lucey et al (2005) who declare:
An engaged workforce is a much more productive unit and the research
indicates that it can have a substantial impact on profitability and
competitiveness. Once established, future transformations will be
sustained and benefits realised, furthermore a platform will be
established for continual change as it becomes a self-perpetuating
continuous improvement process (Lucey et al, 2005).
2.3.2 The linkage between lean manufacturing and employee engagement
There is an increasing awareness in the business community that employee
engagement is pivotal to successful business performance. This notion is
substantiated by Levinson (2007) who believes that ”engaged employees are
the backbone of good working environments where people are industrious,
ethical, and accountable” (Levinson, 2007).
The human factor of lean is an area that is not well researched (Lucey, 2009a).
This is confirmed by Halbesleben (2003) who states:
The literature on engagement is largely under developed. To date, I
know of only a handful of empirical studies that have examined the
construct of engagement of employees relative to their work, there is a
general need for more research on the concept of engagement in
organisations” (Halbesleben, 2003).
Vidal (2007) supports this statement and contends that many people argue that
increased employee involvement in manufacturing is central to the success of
lean manufacturing; however, qualitative research directly addressing the
relationship between participatory work arrangements and job satisfaction is
minimal. He further comments that the quantitative evidence is much less clear
than often presented. Robinson et al (2004) support this view and claim:
For such a well-used and popular term, engagement has surprisingly
little associated research. In fact, a trawl of the literature revealed only a
handful of studies, although several references were uncovered relating
49
to models and methods of analysis promoted by consultancies and
survey houses and their use by large companies (Robinson et al, 2004).
Lucey (2009b) used six-monthly employee engagement surveys as part of an
action-based research study, specific to a lean manufacturing environment, to
test the correlation between employee engagement and the sustainability of
lean transformation. A year later, Lucey et al (2005) confirmed a strong
correlation between employee engagement and lean sustainability. They
further state that the level of employee engagement should be measured
regularly to enable the leadership to take appropriate action to enhance the
situation.
Carnall (2003) raises the question of “an index for change readiness” to reduce
the failure rates of major change initiatives. Lucey (2009b) accepted this
challenge to define what he labels a “lean sustainability zone” to assess
whether organisational staff is sufficiently engaged for a successful lean
transformation.
Lucey (2009b) adopted Lewin’s model (1951) of B = F (P, E). This defines
behaviour as a function of the person and their environment. Lucey adapted
this model to one to measure employee engagement or, more specifically, the
measure of behaviour of the employee in the workplace. The proposed,
adapted formula for employee engagement is EE = F (P, E) (Lucey, 2009b).
Cognisance is taken of the fact that, whilst there are other environmental
aspects that impact on the behaviour of the employee, the work environment
and company culture has the most significant impact on the way that employees
conduct themselves at work and, consequently, on their level of employee
engagement (Lucey, 2009b).
Lucey (2009b) analysed the employee engagement scores of three
departments in the Boots Company (main case firms) over a number of years.
Different lean interventions, such as 5S, were employed in his pursuit to
develop the lean sustainability zone. Lucey concludes in his findings that there
are different thresholds, in terms of employee engagement, to commence and
50
sustain a major lean transformation. He labels the employee engagement level
required to sustain a lean transition as the “lean sustainability zone” and the
score required to commence a lean transformation as the “threshold level to
commence a major lean transformation” (Lucey, 2009b).
The results of the main case firms strongly indicate that employee engagement
is a reliable and robust method to establish if major change can be successfully
undertaken and the results thereof sustained. A threshold score of 3.75
indicates the readiness of an organisation to embark on major lean
transformation, whereas a score of at least 4.00 is required to quickly transact
the change, as well as sustain it (Lucey, 2009b).
The results of the main case firms were validated at three external firms to test
the reliability of the “lean sustainability zone” concept. It is important to note
that one of the external firms consists of two factories, thus the number of
external firms can be counted as four (Lucey, 2009b). The results of this study
are depicted in Figure 2.4, along with that of the original main case firms.
Figure 2.4: Informing and refining the lean sustainability zone
Source: Adapted from Lucey, 2009b
The Drinks Factory and Machine Factory have seven years lean experience
and a very successful record of accomplishing lean transformation. The
51
average scores of 4.40 and 4.10 confirm that the two factories are in the
proposed “lean sustainability zone”. It is evident that FBN is not ready for major
lean transformation, whereas Unipart’s average score of 3.30 indicates the
company is close to the threshold to commence such an intervention (Lucey,
2009b).
The “lean sustainability zone” has been validated and exists where employee
engagement scores are between four and six. A score of less than 3.75 prior to
any lean training indicates a company’s insufficiency to complete a major lean
transformation (Lucey, 2009b).
2.4 SUMMARY
Prior research into the critical success factors of lean manufacturing has proven
that the human factor plays a major role in the success of lean transformation
and enabling innovation and continuous improvement. The human capital
aspect of an organisation is considered the primary source of an organisation’s
competitive advantage and lean assists in competitiveness, as suggested by
prior research.
The leadership aspect of transformation closely follows the importance of the
human factor of lean transformation. Leaders with a clear, long-term vision,
who are people-centric, inspires trust and challenges the status quo, should be
leading such transformation. It is important that lean transformation is led,
rather than managed.
Consultation with all stakeholders prior to the commencement of the change
process is paramount, as is clear and regular communication to engage all
parties in the transformation.
The organisation’s culture is regarded as being important and has been found
to be a major contributor to lean implementation failures. Organisational culture
comprises the values, norms and beliefs of the organisation. This includes the
expectations of the organisation’s members which, in turn, define staff attitudes
52
and behaviours. Organisational culture is ultimately conducive to successful
lean transformation.
engagement is critical to successful business performance. Statistics have
shown that, on average, only 20 per cent of employees are engaged. This is
indicative of the untapped opportunity that resides within an organisation’s
human capital asset. It has been confirmed that a highly engaged workforce is
a sign of a healthy organisation. Such employees are conscious of the
business context and work together with fellow employees to improve
performance for the benefit of the organisation. In return, the organisation is
expected to develop and nurture a two-way relationship. Engagement is
supported and maximised by the organisational culture and its reputation,
leadership, quality of communication and management style. This is further
enhanced by an environment where organisational ethics and trustworthiness
form the cornerstones of the organisation. Moreover, employees’ need to feel
they are valued and that their contributions matter to the organisation achieving
its objectives.
It is imperative for the organisation to create an environment in which the
human resource perceives the situation to be safe, trustworthy, predictable and
clear in terms of behavioural consequences, without fear of any harmful
consequences to the employee’s self-image, status, or career. Individual
development opportunities for an organisation’s human capital are important in
pursuit of higher levels of organisational engagement.
Prior research has shown that the age of the organisation’s workforce is in
direct relation to the level of engagement. Different drivers have been identified
as increasing the level of engagement for different generations.
The human capital side of lean manufacturing is an area that has not been well
researched (Halbesleben, 2003; Lucey, 2009a; Robinson et al, 2004); however,
the relationship and correlation between employee engagement and the
53
success of lean transformation has been confirmed by Lucey et al, (2005) and
Vidal (2007).
other major change intervention, is the ability for organisations to sustain the
changed environment into the future to realise the benefits thereof (Bridges,
2002). There is little research that support the notion that organisations know in
advance whether a major change program will be successful, or not. The lean
sustainability zone was defined to address two aspects of potential lean
transformation. The first was to establish whether an organisation is ready to
start with lean transformation, whereas the second aspect deals with the
potential of the future sustainability of the initiated transformation.
54
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
Lean manufacturing has been introduced at AB Company as an initiative to
improve organisational competitiveness and future economic sustainability. As
discussed previously, the failure rate for major organisational changes is high
and the associated results include financial losses and frustrated employees.
Even with the best-intended strategies and tactics, something unexpected may
occur during the implementation of major change. The best counter measure is
to carefully monitor the process, timeously identify the unexpected and provide
an intelligent reaction thereto (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979).
The implementation of lean at AB Company is still in its infancy stage and it
would be beneficial for the organisation to determine its readiness for this
improvement intervention, as well as the future sustainability thereof. In pursuit
of these objectives, the human capital at AB Company requires assessment to
determine whether the level of engagement is supportive of the named
objectives.
3.1
RESEARCH DESIGN
Research methodology is about the manner in which one thinks about research,
the way data is collected and analysed, as well as the presentation thereof.
Research exists in a quantitative or qualitative paradigm. The qualitative
paradigm comprises the qualities and non-numerical characteristics, whilst the
quantitative paradigm is about the collection of numeric data.
A
phenomenological paradigm has a propensity to produce qualitative data,
whereas a positivistic paradigm tends to deliver quantitative data (Collis &
Hussey, 2003).
The research paradigm selected for this research is that of a positivistic nature.
This is mainly due to the exploratory, cross-sectional and descriptive nature of
the study, supported by quantitative data collected from the organisation. Some
qualitative variables were included to support the data analysis.
55
According to Henry (1990), it is preferable to distribute and collect data from the
entire population. Against this, the target population comprised the entire
workforce of the organisation, which totalled 1395 as at August 2010.
The sample frame selected for this study included (1) all employees with access
to a computer (522 employees); and (2) shop floor employees without access to
a computer (306 employees), located at the Port Elizabeth operation. The
sample frame was selected to improve representation of the sample.
An approach of non-probability sampling was adopted.
Non-probability
sampling has the characteristic that every potential participant has an unknown
chance of being selected for participation, whereas probability sampling uses
randomisation to ensure selection without subjectivity (Morgan & Harmon,
1999).
Convenience sampling was used to obtain the required data from the
participants in the study. Convenience sampling can best be described as an
inexpensive approximation of the truth, achieved through sampling of those
potential participants that are easily reachable and available for participation.
The disadvantage of convenience sampling is that it may introduce bias as
there is no guarantee that it is representative of the population (Gravetter &
Forzano, 2009).
The organisation provided a list of all employees with access to a computer to
the researcher. Additionally, 140 questionnaires were randomly distributed to
hourly-paid employees on the shop floor, thereby satisfying the second sample
frame.
The measuring instrument used in the study was specifically developed and
validated to measure both the readiness of an organisation to commence with
major lean transformation, as well as the future sustainability of such a
56
transformation (Lucey, 2009b). The focal point of this instrument is human
capital and it thus measures employee engagement. As this instrument was
specifically developed to define the “lean sustainability zone”, the researcher
thought it appropriate to use the tool to measure the readiness and future
sustainability at the organisation being studied. The necessary permission was
obtained to use this tool for this study, as shown in Appendix 1. The measuring
instrument was adopted to capture additional data, specific to the organisation
researched. The first section of the questionnaire dealt with the following
descriptive variables:
−
Functional area
This refers to the functional area in the organisation within which the employee
is active. The organisation consists of four functional segments, namely
purchasing, manufacturing, sales and services. The primary reason for
collecting this information was to test whether there are significant differences,
based on functional area, in employee engagement.
−
Geographic location
This refers to the physical location of the respondent in the organisation, for
example, the manufacturing plant or sales offices. The objective was to
ascertain whether any significant difference in employee engagement might be
ascribed to geographic location. The manufacturing operations were examined
individually, whilst the sales offices were consolidated into one entity due to a
low headcount at each office.
−
Generation
The respondents’ generations were classified according to date of birth and
comprised various categories, namely born after 1980, born between 1972 and
1980, born between 1965 and 1971, born between 1955 and 1964 and born
before 1955. The test for generation was undertaken to confirm if the
phenomena of varying levels of engagement amongst different generations is
present within the organisation, as claimed in an earlier study (Pitt-Catsouphes
& Matz-Costa, 2009).
57
−
Position
Information was gathered regarding the seniority level of each respondent, such
as executive leadership, senior general management or general management,
management (P8 to P5), salaried staff or hourly staff. The objective was to
determine whether a significantly different level of employee engagement exists
between the respective position levels that employees hold in the organisation.
The second part of the measuring instrument comprises the quantitative data
used to measure the engagement levels of the respondents. This section of the
questionnaire was divided into six sections, each section consisting of four
questions. The six primary categories dealt with pertinent areas of engagement
in the workplace, as follows:
−
−
−
How do I feel about team working?
−
How do I feel about improving my job?
−
How do I feel about the working environment?
−
How do I feel about safety? (Lucey, 2009b).
A synopsis on the fundamentals of the above six areas of examination can be
found in the work of Wagner and Harter (2006). This underpins the measures
of employee engagement, as examined:
−
It is important for individuals to have a detailed understanding of their
own contribution and the organisation’s expectation of them and how it
fits in with the contribution of others, as well as how a change in
circumstances may result in a change to expectations. There is a strong
correlation between job clarity and productivity, profitability, customer
satisfaction and safety performance (Wagner & Harter, 2006).
−
Adequate resources support realising a difference in the workplace,
whilst a lack thereof create frustration on the part of the employee.
These stress-inducing resources include those basic materials and
58
equipment that employees may require.
Research supports the
correlation between the availability of resources and improved customer
engagement, employee retention and reduced workplace injuries. There
is a negative relationship between the availability of resources in the
workplace and taking stress home (Wagner & Harter, 2006).
−
Employees need to be afforded with opportunities for learning and
growth. This results in the individual working harder and more efficiently.
This notion is supported by a strong correlation between engagement
and an increase in loyalty and profitability offering by the employee
(Wagner & Harter, 2006).
−
Encouragement of individual development is of paramount importance. It
is suggested that it is difficult to obtain any improvement, in any of the
other areas of engagement, until improvement in this area has been
realised. This development can be facilitated by appointing employee
mentors to enhance a higher degree of interpersonal communication
(Wagner & Harter, 2006).
−
Regular recognition and praise for work well done is an important factor
in employee engagement. Recent research discovered that attention is
automatically drawn more strongly to negative information, than to
positive information. It is not surprising, therefore, that the majority of
managers and companies are quicker to squash a problem than they are
to praise great performance. Negative events will continually take
precedence without an effort to maintain recognition. Recognition and
praise have been found to be a contributor to high performance groups,
as well as a positive influence on higher productivity, revenue and
employee retention (Wagner & Harter, 2006).
−
It appears that individual opinions are important in the workplace and the
sharing thereof should be promoted to increase the feeling of inclusion
amongst employees. There is a strong correlation between a feeling of
59
inclusion and respectful and fair treatment of employees. There is also a
significant positive link between individual opinions being cared for and
customer loyalty, business profits, employee retention and improved
safety (Wagner & Harter, 2006).
−
Creating opportunities for employees to do what they do best significantly
improves employee engagement. This is about matching and focusing
on the strengths, skills, talents and knowledge of employees, rather than
weaknesses. There is a strong correlation between employees who feel
that they are doing what they do best and business results (Wagner &
Harter, 2006).
−
Caring for the people you work with is a major contributor to unleashing
the hidden potential of employees and further encourages a feeling of
belonging. It is supportive of commitment to others and the group or
team. Caring has a positive relationship to employee retention (Wagner
& Harter, 2006).
−
Employees search for meaning in their work to differentiate between just
another job and a job that makes them feel important. Employees need
to understand what it is that the organisation wants to achieve and how
individual contribution assists in fulfilling organisational objectives.
Moreover, employees must believe that such a purpose is worthy of the
individual’s efforts. A correlation has been found between the mission of
the organisation and increased employee retention, higher profitability
and reduced workplace accidents (Wagner & Harter, 2006).
−
Teams need a strong work ethic and sense of responsibility to ensure
that the team does not become a hiding place for less committed
employees. Clear standards should be set by leadership toward
promoting high performance teams (Wagner & Harter, 2006).
60
−
The organisation’s leadership should encourage friendships in the
workplace by creating conditions under which such relationships can
thrive. This promotes communication, in addition to creating an
environment of trust. Research has shown that this element increases
profitability and customer engagement and reduces inventory shrinkage
and workplace-related accidents (Wagner & Harter, 2006).
−
Feedback on individual progress is an important facet of employee
engagement and should be conducted as a continuous process. It
should not be limited to an official performance review, although this
could be included as one aspect of progress feedback. Research
indicates a correlation between regular progress feedback and feelings of
receiving fair remuneration, willingness to promote the organisation to
potential employees, to remain with the organisation and generally
promoting a more productive and safer workplace (Wagner & Harter,
2006).
The questionnaire was anchored on a six-point Likert scale, ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree, as per the original measuring instrument
developed by Lucey (2009b). The manual version of the measuring instrument
is provided in Appendix 2.
The questionnaire was presented to the potential participants, accompanied by
an introductory letter explaining the importance of the study, providing
assurance of total confidentiality and anonymity, as well as the undertaking to
provide concluded feedback at the end of the study, as shown in Appendix 3.
3.1.3 Survey procedure
A survey, using a questionnaire as the measuring instrument, was conducted
from late August 2010 to early September 2010. A large part of the survey was
conducted electronically by means of a web-based survey of all potential
participants with access to a computer. The electronic survey tool used was
PHPESP (Butterfat, n.d.).
61
The primary reason for selecting a web-based survey as a tool to obtain the
bulk of the data was due to the geographic dispersion of potential participants.
The majority of the participants were situated in the Port Elizabeth and Gauteng
areas and, to a lesser extent, across the remainder of South Africa. A
secondary consideration for this choice was the time constraint that alternatives
would have presented. These considerations are supported by Bachmann and
Elfrink (1996) who assert that Internet-based surveys save time for researchers,
especially if the respondents are separated by great geographic distances.
They further raise the issue of a significant reduction in the cost of online
surveys, versus that of traditional methods (Bachmann & Elfrink, 1996).
A manual survey was further conducted on a sub-population to obtain
representation from the entire population. The sub-population mainly consisted
of shop floor employees at the Port Elizabeth-based operations. These
employees did not have access to computers and, in this case, questionnaires
were hand-delivered to potential participants and collected a week later.
The web-based survey comprised a sample of 522 potential respondents, whilst
the manual survey had a sample size of 140 potential respondents.
3.1.4 Data analysis
Data collected by means of the web-based survey program PHPESP (Butterfat,
n.d.) was exported into an Excel spreadsheet. The manually administered
survey questionnaires were added manually to the Excel spreadsheet
containing the electronically-gathered data. All the data retained anonymity
throughout both the electronic and manual survey processes.
The dataset was manually scrutinised for any incomplete surveys. Seven such
responses were identified and discarded from the data set. The computer
program XLSTAT (XLSTAT, n.d.), an add-on in Excel, was used to analyse the
data to create the following statistics:
−descriptive statistics in terms of frequencies, or percentages, of the
respondents;
62
−
descriptive statistics in terms of central tendencies, incorporating the
arithmetic means, medians, ranges, minimums, maximums and standard
deviations in terms of employee engagement;
−
measuring the instrument’s reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha); and
−
comparative dispersion statistics to describe the data relative to the
qualitative variables, comprising mainly the functional areas of
employment, geographic location, age generation, and job position in the
organisation.
3.2 SUMMARY
This chapter discussed the research methodology and methods used in the
study, more specifically the sample and sample size, the measuring instrument,
the survey procedure and the data analysis conducted.
The next chapter provides both an in-depth discussion of the analysis of the
survey results, as well as an assessment of the results against the lean
sustainability zone measuring tool (Lucey, 2009b).
63
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter reports on the results from the employee engagement survey
conducted at AB Company during late August 2010 to early September 2010.
The purpose of this study was to assess the employee engagement score at AB
Company to establish whether AB Company is (1) ready for major lean
transformation; and (2) to predict whether the transformation will be sustainable
in the future. To date, no other employee engagement survey had been
conducted at AB Company to measure the readiness for major change or the
sustainability of such a major change. As such, there was no relative
population to be used as a comparative for this study.
As previously noted, the failure rate for major organisational change is high.
Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) clearly state that, even with the best-intended
strategies and tactics, something unexpected will occur during the
implementation of major change. They further contend that the best counter
measure to unexpected events is to carefully monitor the process, timeously
identify the unexpected event and proceed to intelligent reaction thereto. The
data was interpreted, therefore, with the view to render meaningful
recommendations regarding areas that may require special attention. These
recommendations will be presented in Chapter 5.
4.1
THE SAMPLE
The entire population of the organisation, as at August 2010, was comprised of
1395 employees. The survey rendered 328 responses in total, with seven spoilt
responses due to missing data. As mentioned previously, these seven
responses were discarded.
The sample size of the web-based survey was 522 employees, from which 244
completed questionnaires were received, inclusive of the seven spoilt
responses. This constitutes a net response rate of 45.4 per cent.
64
The sub-population of shop floor employees at the Port Elizabeth-based
operation comprised 306 employees. The sample size was 140 employees,
with responses received from 84 employees, thus realising a net response rate
of 60 per cent.
This resulted in an overall response rate of 49.5 per cent for the web-based and
manual survey.
4.1.1 The sample characteristics
The organisation consists of four functional business areas, namely purchasing,
manufacturing, sales and services. The latter consist of disciplines such as
finance, human resources, central support and information technology. Of the
responses received from this survey, 2.8 per cent (n=9) was received from the
purchasing functional area, 52.0 per cent (n=167) from the manufacturing
functional area, 28.3 per cent (n=91) from the sales functional area and 16.8
per cent (n=54) from the services functional area, as depicted in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Relative frequencies by functional area
Source: Researcher’s own construction
It is evident from Figure 4.1 that the manufacturing function presented the most
significant response rate. This may be explained by the fact that the
manufacturing functional area represents 75 per cent of the organisations’
employees, whilst the sales functional area represents 20 per cent. This implies
that the response rate from the services area was exceptional, considering that
it represents four per cent of the organisation’s headcount, as depicted in Figure
4.2.
65
Figure 4.2: Breakdown of employees per functional area
The organisation has numerous manufacturing facilities and distribution points.
The various manufacturing facilities in the Gauteng area were consolidated as
the Gauteng operation for reporting purposes. This is due to a current
consolidation project in that region. Relatively insignificant response rates were
obtained from the numerous sales and distribution points across the country.
These were consolidated into one unit for this reason and will be reported as
Sales Offices. Of the respondents, 35.8 per cent (n=115) hailed from the
Gauteng operation, 48.9 per cent (n=157) from the PE operation and 15.3 per
cent (n=49) from the Sales Offices. The relative response frequencies are
illustrated in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: Relative frequencies by geographic location
Figure 4.3 illustrates that the highest response rate was received from the Port
Elizabeth-based operation. This is correctly reported as a whole for the
purposes of the survey. Taking into account that two sample frames were
selected for this study, namely (1) all employees with access to a computer; and
66
(2) employees without access to a computer and located at the Port Elizabeth
operation, cognisance must be taken that Figure 4.3 reports the results as allinclusive.
Figure 4.4 reports on the response by geographic location and excludes the
second sample frame that represents the manual survey conducted at the Port
Elizabeth operation.
Figure 4.4: Relative frequencies excluding shop floor employees
Figure 4.4 confirms that the highest response to the web-based survey was
obtained from the Gauteng operation.
Of the respondents, 9 per cent (n=29) were born before 1955, 29.3 per cent
(n=94) were born between 1955 and 1964, 27.7 per cent (n=89) between 1965
and 1971, 19.6 per cent (n=63) between 1972 and 1980 and 14.3 per cent
(n=46) were born after 1980. The relative response frequencies are depicted in
Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.5: Relative frequencies by generation
67
It is apparent from Figure 4.5 that the survey results are representative mostly
of respondents from the younger boomers generation, closely followed by the
older generation Xs, as categorised in Table 4.1. Least represented in the
survey is the older boomers, also known as the traditionalists.
Table 4.1: Generations defined by year of birth
Older Boomers /
Traditionalists
Born before 1955
Younger
Boomers
Older Gen X
Younger Gen
X
Gen Y /
Millennials
Born between Born between Born between
Born after 1980
1955 and 1964 1965 and 1971 1972 and 1980
Of the respondents, 0.9 per cent (n=3) were executive leaders, 2.2 per cent
(n=7) general managers, 22.7 per cent (n=73) managers, 44.9 per cent (n=144)
salaried staff, and 29.3 per cent (n=94) hourly staff in the employ of the
organisation. These response frequencies are depicted in Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6: Relative frequencies by job position
It is evident from Figure 4.6 that the majority of responses were obtained from
the salaried staff contingent in the business. The second highest response
group, by job position, was that of the hourly-paid group, with 15.6 per cent less
responses.
Response from the organisational leadership and senior
management were the lowest. This may be explained by the ratio of employees
at the different job levels, especially considering there are far fewer senior
managers than hourly-paid staff.
68
4.2
MEASURING INSTRUMENT RELIABILITY
Lucey (2009b) developed and validated the measuring instrument used in this
study for quantitative results. The researcher verified the reliability of the
measuring instrument and found it to be reliable. Cronbach's Alpha was
calculated with a resultant value of 0.927. A reliability coefficient of 0.7 is
regarded as acceptable (UCLA Academic Technology Services, n.d.).
4.3
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESULTS
As discussed in Chapter 3, the measuring instrument dealt with six pertinent
areas of employee engagement, categorised from A to F:
−
Category A: How do I feel about my job?
−
Category B: How do I feel about myself?
−
Category C: How do I feel about team working?
−
Category D: How do I feel about improving my job?
−
Category E: How do I feel about the working environment?
−
Category F: How do I feel about safety?
The above six areas of employee engagement consisted of four questions
each. Each question was answered by selecting a response ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree. A score of 1 was awarded to strongly
disagree, ranging to a score of 6 for strongly agree, during the coding of the
survey results.
The data for each question within the six measurement categories (A to F) was
analysed for employee engagement. The summarised statistics appear in
Appendices 4 and 5. The six categories of engagement, as well as the
questions that underpin these categories, are discussed next.
4.3.1 How do I feel about my job? (Category A)
Questions one to four underpinned the first measurement category (A) of
employee engagement, as defined by the measuring instrument used for this
study. The primary purpose of this category was to establish how the employee
feels about the job.
69
The 6-point Likert scale represents scores of 1 to 3 on the “disagree” side of the
scale and scores of 4 to 6 on the “agree” side of the scale. It was, therefore,
assumed that scores of 1 to 3 represented negative responses and that scores
of 4 to 6 represented positive responses.
The survey observations for Category A “How do I feel about my job?” indicate
that 76.3 per cent (n=245) of the respondents were positive about their job,
whereas 23.7 per cent (n=76) employees responded less positively to the
questions, as indicated in Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.7: Histogram - How do I feel about my job? (Category A)
The mean for this category was determined to be 4.482, with a standard
deviation of 1.058, as shown in Table 4.2. This suggests that the observations,
as a whole for the four underlying questions, were clustered around the mean,
thereby indicating that majority of employees experience a positive feeling
about their job.
Table 4.2: Statistics - How do I feel about my job? (Category A)
Variable
Observations Minimum Maximum Mean
321
1
6
SD
4.482 1.058
The responses to each of the questions that underpinned this measurement
category of engagement are discussed next:
70
a.
Question 1: I am clear of what is expected of me in my job
(Category A - How do I feel about my job?)
This question is concerned with the clarity of the job at AB Company. The
survey results demonstrate that 46.1 per cent (n=148) of employees strongly
agreed with this statement and indicated their feeling with a score of 6 on the
Likert scale. This feeling was supported, to a lesser extent, by 26.5 per cent
(n=85) employees who scored it at 5 and 16.8 per cent (n=54) who scored it at
4. In total, 89.4 per cent (n=287) of the respondents agreed with this statement
by giving it a score between 4 and 6, as depicted in Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.8: Histogram - I am clear of what is expected of me in my job
The minimum score recorded was 1 (n=11), whereas the maximum was 6
(n=148). This defined the range at 5. The median is the number in the middle
of the data range and this was a 5 for this data set. The mean value for this
question was 4.966, with a standard deviation of 1.305. The statistics also
show that the true sample mean was between 4.822 and 5.109, at a confidence
level of 95 per cent, as indicated in Table 4.3.
71
Table 4.3: Statistics - I am clear of what is expected of me in my job
Q1: I am clear of what is expected of me in my job
Number of observations
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
Frequency of minimum
11
Frequency of maximum
148
Range
5
Median
5
Mean
4.966
Standard deviation
1.305
Lower bound on mean (95%)
4.822
Upper bound on mean (95%)
5.109
b.
Question 2: My colleagues and I work to same standards
This question is concerned with the employees’ perception of fairness in the
workplace. The survey results indicate that 20.6 per cent (n=66) of employees
strongly agreed with this statement and indicated their perception with a score
of 6. This perception was supported by 30.5 per cent (n=98) of employees who
scored it as a 5 and 20.2 per cent (n=65) who scored it as a 4. In total, 71.3 per
cent (n=229) of the respondents demonstrated agreement with this statement
by giving it a score between 4 and 6, whereas 28.7 per cent (n=92) disagreed
with the statement, as shown in Figure 4.9.
Figure 4.9: Histogram - My colleagues and I work to same standards
72
The minimum score recorded was a 1 (n=25), whereas the maximum was a 6
(n=66), which defined the range at 5, with the median recorded as 5. The mean
value for this statement was 4.190, with a standard deviation of 1.504. The
statistics also demonstrate that the true sample mean was between 4.025 and
4.355, at a confidence level of 95 per cent, as indicated in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Statistics - My colleagues and I work to same standards
Q2: My colleagues and I work to same standards
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
25
66
Range
5
Median
5
Mean
4.190
Standard deviation
1.504
4.025
4.355
c.
Question 3: I have been adequately trained for tasks I do
This question enquired about whether employees felt they have received
adequate training to meet their job demands. The survey results indicate that
75.1 per cent (n=241) of employees agreed with this statement, whilst 24.9 per
cent (n=80) considered their training inadequate, as illustrated in Figure 4.10.
73
Figure 4.10: Histogram - I have been adequately trained for tasks I do
(n=83), with a resultant range of 5. The median calculated for this question was
5. The mean value for this question was 4.312, with a standard deviation of
1.511, indicative of a wide spread of responses. The statistics also show that
the true sample mean was between 4.146 and 4.447, at a confidence level of
95 per cent, as indicated in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Statistics - I have been adequately trained for tasks I do
Q3: I have been adequately trained for tasks I do
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
22
83
Range
5
Median
5
Mean
4.312
Standard deviation
1.511
4.146
4.477
74
d.
Question 4: The planning and organising of the days' work
is good (Category A - How do I feel about my job?)
This question is about the employee’s perception of daily work planning. The
survey results indicate that 22.4 per cent (n=72) of employees strongly agreed
with this statement, 31.2 per cent (n=100) agreed and scored it at 5, whilst 28.7
per cent (n=92) perceived it to be a 4. Less than 20 per cent of the respondents
considered the work organisation as not good. The distribution of responses is
shown in Figure 4.11.
Figure 4.11: Histogram - The planning and organising of the days' work is good
(n=72), which defined the range at 5 and the median at 5. The mean for this
question was calculated at 4.46,1 with a standard deviation of 1.277. The
75
Table 4.6: Statistics - The planning and organising of the days' work is good
Q4: The planning and organising of the day’s work is good
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
14
72
Range
5
Median
5
Mean
4.461
Standard deviation
1.277
4.321
4.601
4.3.2 How do I feel about myself? (Category B)
Questions 5 to 8 support the second measurement category (B) of employee
engagement, as defined by the measuring instrument used for this study. The
primary function of this category was to establish the self-feeling of the
employee.
The survey observations, as a whole for category B “How do I feel about
myself?” indicate that 76.3 per cent (n=245) of the respondents had a positive
self-feeling, whereas 23.7 per cent (n=76) of employees had experienced a less
than positive self-feeling, as indicated in Figure 4.12.
Figure 4.12: Histogram - How do I feel about myself? (Category B)
76
The mean for “How do I feel about myself?” was calculated at 4.406, with a
standard deviation of 1.068, as shown in Table 4.7. This suggests that the
observations, as a whole for the four underlying questions, were clustered
around the mean, indicating that majority of employees had a positive selffeeling.
Table 4.7: Statistics - How do I feel about myself? (Category B)
Variable
321
1
6
SD
4.406 1.068
category of engagement are discussed next.
a.
Question 5: My work gives me a strong sense of achievement
(Category B - How do I feel about myself?)
This question is concerned with the employee’s sense of achievement
experienced in the workplace, which also supports being part of achieving
something special for the organisation. The survey results indicate that 25.2
per cent (n=81) of employees strongly agreed with this statement and
correspondingly indicated their perception with a score of 6. This perception
was supported by 32.7 per cent (n=105) of employees who scored it as a 5 and
16.8 per cent (n=54) who scored it a 4. In total, 74.8 per cent (n=240) of the
respondents agreed with this statement by allotting it a score between 4 and 6,
whereas 25.2 per cent (n=81) disagreed with the statement (refer Figure 4.13).
Figure 4.13: Histogram - My work gives me a strong sense of achievement
77
(n=81). This defined the range at 5, with the median recorded as 5. The mean
statistics also indicate that the true sample mean was between 4.188 and
Table 4.8: Statistics - My work gives me a strong sense of achievement
Q5: My work gives me a strong sense of achievement
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
27
81
Range
5
Median
5
Mean
4.355
Standard deviation
1.520
4.188
4.522
b.
Question 6: People are usually thanked for a good job or for
some special work (Category B - How do I feel about
myself?)
This question is about the sense of appreciation for tasks done by the
employees of AB Company. The survey results indicated that 11.8 per cent
(n=38) of employees strongly agreed with this statement and indicated their
feelings by selecting a score of 6 on the Likert scale. This feeling was
supported, largely, by 25.5 per cent (n=82) of employees who scored it at 5 and
22.7 per cent (n=73) who rated it at 4. In total, 60.1 per cent (n=193) of the
respondents indicated agreement with this statement by giving it a score
between 4 and 6, as depicted in Figure 4.14.
78
Figure 4.14: Histogram - People are usually thanked for a good job or for some
special work
(n=38), which defined the range at 5. The median for the data range was
recorded as a 5. The mean value for this question was 3.754, with a standard
deviation of 1.528. The statistics also demonstrate that the true sample mean
was between 3.586 and 3.922, at a confidence level of 95 per cent, as indicated
in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9: Statistics - People are usually thanked for a good job or for some
special work
Q6: People are usually thanked for a good job or for some special work
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
39
38
Range
5
Median
4
Mean
3.754
Standard deviation
1.528
3.586
3.922
79
c.
Question 7: I feel I could take on more responsibility
(Category B - How do I feel about myself?)
This question enquired about whether employees felt that they could take on
more responsibility in the workplace. The survey results indicate that 75.7 per
cent (n=243) of employees agreed with this statement, whilst 24.3 per cent
(n=78) felt that they would not be able to take on any additional responsibility in
the workplace, as shown in Figure 4.15.
Figure 4.15: Histogram - I feel I could take on more responsibility
(n=87), with a resultant range of 5. The median for this question was calculated
to be 5, which indicated that the middle of the scores recorded was a 5. The
mean value for this question was 4.340, with a standard deviation of 1.500. The
statistics also illustrate that the true sample mean was between 4.175 and
80
Table 4.10: Statistics - I feel I could take on more responsibility
Q7: I feel I could take on more responsibility
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
21
87
Range
5
Median
5
Mean
4.340
Standard deviation
1.500
4.175
4.504
d.
Question 8: I want to contribute to making AB Company a
very successful company (Category B - How do I feel about
myself?)
This question is about the employee’s intentions regarding his or her
contribution to enhance the wellbeing of the organisation. The survey results
indicate that 61.4 per cent (n=197) of employees strongly agreed with this
statement, 17.8 per cent (n=57) employees agreed and scored it at 5 and 8.4
per cent (n=27) perceived it as a 4. Approximately 12.5 per cent (n=40) of the
respondents scored this question negatively. This implies they have no or little
intent to contribute to the success of the organisation. The distribution of
responses is depicted in Figure 4.16.
81
Figure 4.16: Histogram - I want to contribute to making AB Company a very
successful company
(n=197), which defined the range at 5. The median was calculated to be a 6 for
this data set. The mean for this question was calculated at 5.174, with a
standard deviation of 1.344. The statistics also prove that the true sample
mean was between 5.027 and 5.322, at a confidence level of 95 per cent, as
indicated in Table 4.11. These statistics are indicative of a general intent of the
workforce to contribute to the success of the organisation.
Table 4.11: Statistics - I want to contribute to making AB Company a very
successful company
Q8: I want to contribute to making AB Company a very successful company
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
17
197
Range
5
Median
6
Mean
5.174
Standard deviation
1.344
5.027
5.322
82
4.3.3 How do I feel about team working? (Category C)
Questions 9 to 12 measured the third measurement category (C) of employee
engagement, as defined by the measuring instrument used for this study. The
objective of this category was to establish the employees’ feeling of teamwork in
the organisation.
The survey observations, as a whole for category C “How do I feel about team
working?” indicate that 57.0 per cent (n=183) of the respondents had a positive
feeling about team working in the organisation, whereas 43.0 per cent (n=138)
of employees felt that team working in the organisation could be improved, as
indicated in Figure 4.17.
Figure 4.17: Histogram - How do I feel about team working? (Category C)
The mean for “How do I feel about team working?” was calculated at 3.935, with
a standard deviation of 1.191, as shown in Table 4.12. The respondents’
scores ranged from 1 to 6, defining the range as 5.
Table 4.12: Statistics - How do I feel about team working? (Category C)
Variable
How do I feel about team
working?
321
1
6
SD
3.935 1.191
category of engagement are discussed next.
83
a.
Question 9: Management want team working to be the basis
way we work (Category C - How do I feel about team
working?)
This question was concerned with the employees’ perception of whether
management is actively promoting teamwork in the organisation. The survey
results demonstrate that 27.1 per cent (n=87) of employees strongly agreed
with this statement and indicated their perception with a score of 6. This
perception was supported by 19.0 per cent (n=61) of employees who scored it
at 5, and 28.7 per cent (n=92) who scored it at 4. In total, 74.8 per cent (n=240)
of the respondents indicated agreement with this statement by scoring it at 4, 5
or 6, whereas 25.2 per cent (n=81) disagreed with the notion that management
promote teamwork, as shown in Figure 4.18.
Figure 4.18: Histogram - Management want team-working to be the basis way
we work
(n=87), which defined the range at 5, with the median as 4. The mean value for
this statement was 4.299, with a standard deviation of 1.457. The statistics also
demonstrate that the true sample mean was between 4.139 and 4.459, at a
confidence level of 95 per cent, as indicated in Table 4.13.
84
Table 4.13: Statistics - Management want team working to be the basis way we
work
Q9: Management want team working to be the basis way we work
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
22
87
Range
5
Median
4
Mean
4.299
Standard deviation
1.457
4.139
4.459
b.
Question 10: We have good communication within and
between teams (Category C - How do I feel about team
working?)
This question was about the perception of the level and quality of
communication within, and between teams in the workplace. The survey results
indicate that 10.9 per cent (n=35) of employees strongly agreed with this
statement and indicated their feeling with a score of 6 on the Likert scale. This
feeling was largely supported by 19.3 per cent (n=62) of employees who scored
it at 5 and 34.6 per cent (n=111) who rated it at 4. In total, 64.8 per cent
(n=208) of the respondents agreed with this statement and assigned it a score
between 4 and 6, whereas 35.2 per cent (n=113) felt that communication within
and between teams needed improvement, as depicted in Figure 4.19.
85
Figure 4.19: Histogram - We have good communication within and between
teams
deviation of 1.396. The statistics also showed that the true sample mean was
between 3.626 and 3.932, at a confidence level of 95 per cent, as indicated in
Table 4.14.
Table 4.14: Statistics - We have good communication within and between teams
Q10: We have good communication within and between teams
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
27
35
Range
5
Median
4
Mean
3.779
Standard deviation
1.396
3.626
3.932
86
c.
Question 11: I am part of a group that have real team spirit
(Category C - How do I feel about team working?)
This question enquired about the employees’ feeling regarding team spirit in the
workgroups. The survey results indicate that 68.8 per cent (n=221) of
employees agreed with this statement and 31.2 per cent (n=100) felt that team
spirit could be improved in the teams, as shown in Figure 4.20.
Figure 4.20: Histogram - I am part of a group that have real team spirit
(n=67), with a sample range of 5. The median calculated for this question was
a 4, which indicate that the middle of the scores recorded was a 4. The mean
value for this question was 4.128, with a standard deviation of 1.464. The
statistics also show that the true sample mean was between 3.967 and 4.288,
at a confidence level of 95 per cent, as indicated in Table 4.15.
87
Table 4.15: Statistics - I am part of a group that have real team spirit
Q11: I am part of a group that have real team spirit
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
24
67
Range
5
Median
4
Mean
4.128
Standard deviation
1.464
3.967
4.288
d.
Question 12: People are willing to confront problems openly
rather than hide them (Category C - How do I feel about team
working?)
This question was about whether employees felt that they could confront
problems openly in the workplace, instead of hiding them. The survey results
illustrate that 10.1 per cent (n=32) of employees strongly agreed with this
statement, 20.2 per cent (n=65) agreed and scored it at 5 and 22.7 per cent
(n=73) perceived it to be a 4. Forty-seven per cent (n=151) of the respondents
scored this question negatively, thereby indicating they did not feel they could
openly address problems in the workplace. This may result in these problems
never being addressed properly. The distribution of responses is depicted in
Figure 4.21.
88
Figure 4.21: Histogram - People are willing to confront problems openly rather
than hide them
standard deviation of 1.521.
The statistics also indicate that the true sample mean was between 3.336 and
3.700, at a confidence level of 95 per cent, as indicated in Table 4.16. These
statistics are indicative of a wide, flat dispersion of responses over the range of
the measuring scale and signifies that almost half of the sample respondents
felt they could not openly address problems in the workplace.
89
Table 4.16 Statistics - People are willing to confront problems openly rather than
hide them
Q12: People are willing to confront problems openly rather than hide them
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
41
32
Range
5
Median
4
Mean
3.533
Standard deviation
1.521
3.366
3.700
4.3.4 How do I feel about improving my job? (Category D)
Questions 13 to 16 measured the fourth measurement category (D) of
employee engagement, as defined in the measuring instrument used for this
study. The aim of this category was to investigate the employees’ feelings
concerning job improvements in the workplace.
The survey observations as a whole for category D “How do I feel about
improving my job?” indicate that 39.6 per cent (n=127) of the respondents were
positive about job improvement possibilities.
A larger portion of the
respondents, 60.4 per cent (n=194), experienced negative feeling towards job
improvement in the organisation, as indicated in Figure 4.22.
90
Figure 4.22: Histogram - How do I feel about improving my job? (Category D)
The mean for “How do I feel about improving my job?” was calculated at 3.511,
with a standard deviation of 1.186, as shown in 4.17. The respondents’ scores
ranged from 1 to 6, defining the range as 5.
Table 4.17: Statistics - How do I feel about improving my job? (Category D)
Variable
How do I feel about
improving my job?
321
1
6
SD
3.511 1.186
category of engagement are discussed below.
a.
Question 13: I am regularly asked how to improve my work
(Category D - How do I feel about improving my job?)
This question was concerned with the employees’ perception of whether
management actively promotes improvement in the workplace. The survey
results demonstrate that 8.4 per cent (n=27) of employees strongly agreed with
this statement and indicated their perception with a score of 6, 9.0 per cent
(n=29) scored it as a 5 and 21.8 per cent (n=70) scored it as a 4. In total, 39.3
per cent (n=126) of the respondents indicated agreement with this statement by
scoring it at 4, 5 or 6, whereas 60.7 per cent (n=195) disagreed with the notion
that they are involved in, and asked how to improve their work in the
organisation, as shown in Figure 4.23.
91
Figure 4.23: Histogram - I am regularly asked how to improve my work
Table 4.18: Statistics - I am regularly asked how to improve my work
Q13: I am regularly asked how to improve my work
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
55
27
Range
5
Median
3
Mean
3.118
Standard deviation
1.485
2.955
3.281
92
b.
Question 14: I am consulted about plans that affect me
(Category D - How do I feel about improving my job?)
This question was about employees’ feelings regarding organisational plans
that affect them. The survey results suggest that 8.1 per cent (n=26) of
employees strongly agreed with this statement and indicated their feeling with a
score of 6 on the Likert scale. This feeling was largely supported by 21.5 per
cent (n=69) of employees who scored it at 5 and 15.3 per cent (n=49) who rated
it a 4. In total, 44.9 per cent (n=144) of the respondents agreed with this
statement by allocating it a score between 4 and 6, whereas 55.1 per cent
(n=177) felt that there is not adequate consultation regarding organisational
plans and interventions, as depicted in Figure 4.24.
Figure 4.24: Histogram - I am consulted about plans that affect me
(n=26), which defined the range at 5. The median for this data range was
deviation of 1.612. The statistics further reveal that the true sample mean was
Table 4.19. The standard deviation denotes that the responses were widely
scattered around the mean, which may be indicative of mixed feelings on this
subject.
93
Table 4.19: Statistics - I am consulted about plans that affect me
Q14: I am consulted about plans that affect me
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
62
26
Range
5
Median
3
Mean
3.283
Standard deviation
1.612
3.107
3.460
c.
Question 15: My team holds regular meetings to discuss
continuous improvements (Category D - How do I feel about
improving my job?)
This question was concerned with ascertaining feelings regarding job
improvement. In this case the question specifically focused on regular
discussions regarding continuous improvement at AB Company. The survey
results signify that 12.5 per cent (n=40) of employees strongly agreed with this
statement and indicated their feeling with a score of 6. This feeling was
supported by 18.4 per cent (n=59) employees who scored it as a 5 and 24.0 per
cent (n=77) who scored it at 4. In total, 54.8 per cent (n=176) of the
respondents indicated agreement with this statement by allocating it a score
between 4 and 6. Almost half of the respondents, 45.2 per cent (n=145)
disagreed, at different levels, that regular improvement meetings are being held,
as depicted in Figure 4.25.
94
Figure 4.25: Histogram - My team holds regular meetings to discuss continuous
improvements
(n=40), which defined the range at 5 and the median at 4 for this data set. The
mean value for this question was 3.542, with a standard deviation of 1.612. The
3.719, at a confidence level of 95 per cent, as indicated in Table 4.20. The
standard deviation was indicative of a wide spread of data around the mean.
Table 4.20: Statistics - My team holds regular meetings to discuss continuous
improvements
Q15: My team holds regular meetings to discuss continuous improvements
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
56
40
Range
5
Median
4
Mean
3.542
Standard deviation
1.612
3.365
3.719
95
d.
Question 16: My team measures the quality of work and
strives for improvement (Category D - How do I feel about
improving my job?)
This question was concerned with employees’ perception of whether quality
was regarded as important, measured at team level and if teams strived for
improvement in the workplace. The survey results signify that 16.8 per cent
(n=54) of employees strongly agreed with this statement and indicated their
perception with a score of 6. This perception was supported by 28.7 per cent
(n=92) of employees who scored it as a 5 and 24.6 per cent (n=79) who scored
it at 4. In total, 70.1 per cent (n=225) of the respondents agreed with this
statement by assigning it a score between 4 and 6, whereas 29.9 per cent
(n=96) disagreed with the statement, as shown in Figure 4.26.
Figure 4.26: Histogram - My team measures the quality of work and strives for
improvement
value for this statement was 4.100 with a standard deviation of 1.444. The
statistics further indicate that the true sample mean was between 3.941 and
96
Table 4.21: Statistics - My team measures the quality of work and strives for
improvement
Q16: My team measures the quality of work and strives for improvement
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
25
54
Range
5
Median
4
Mean
4.100
Standard deviation
1.444
3.941
4.258
4.3.5 How do I feel about the working environment? (Category E)
Questions 17 to 20 measured the fifth measurement category (E) of employee
engagement, as defined in the measuring instrument used. The aim of this
category was to measure employees’ feelings regarding the working
environment in the organisation.
The survey observations, as a whole for category E “How do I feel about the
working environment?” demonstrate that 50.2 per cent (n=161) of the
respondents had positive feelings about the working environment, whereas a
similar portion, 49.8 per cent (n=160), did not experience the work environment
as a positive factor, as indicated in Figure 4.27.
97
Figure 4.27: Histogram - How do I feel about the working environment?
(Category E)
The mean for “How do I feel about the working environment?” was determined
to be 3.733, with a standard deviation of 1.087, as shown in Table 4.22. The
respondents’ scores ranged from 1 to 6, defining the range as 5.
Table 4.22: Statistics - How do I feel about the working environment?
(Category E)
Variable
How do I feel about the
working environment?
321
1
6
SD
3.733 1.087
a.
Question 17: I accept that changes being made are
necessary (Category E - How do I feel about the working
environment?)
This question endeavoured to establish whether respondents accepted that
organisational changes made were necessary. The survey results indicate that
71.7 per cent (n=230) of employees agreed with this statement and 28.3 per
cent (n=91) felt that they could not accept the organisational changes
implemented as being necessary, as shown in Figure 4.28.
98
Figure 4.28: Histogram - I accept that changes being made are necessary
(n=80), with a resultant range of 5. The median for this question was calculated
to be 5. The mean value for this question was 4.305, with a standard deviation
of 1.436. The statistics also show that the true sample mean was between
4.148 and 4.463, at a confidence level of 95 per cent, as indicated in Table
4.23.
Table 4.23: Statistics - I accept that changes being made are necessary
Q17: I accept that changes being made are necessary
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
19
80
Range
5
Median
5
Mean
4.305
Standard deviation
1.436
4.148
4.463
99
b.
Question 18: I have long-term job security (Category E - How
do I feel about the working environment?)
This question tested employees’ perception regarding whether the organisation
offers long-term job security. The survey results signify that 16.5 per cent
(n=53) of employees strongly agreed with this statement, 21.8 per cent (n=70)
employees agreed and scored it at 5, and 22.1 per cent (n=71) perceived it to
be a 4. More than 60 per cent of the respondents felt they have long-term job
security with the organisation, whereas less than 40 per cent felt insecure about
their job security, as shown in Figure 4.29.
Figure 4.29: Histogram - I have long-term job security
(n=53), which defined the range at 5. The median, the number in the middle of
the data range, was recorded as a 4 for this data set. The mean for this
question was calculated at 3.822, with a standard deviation of 1.558. The
standard deviation is indicative of a wide distribution of responses, ranging from
scores of 1 to 6. The statistics also demonstrate that the true sample mean was
Table 4.24.
100
Table 4.24: Statistics - I have long-term job security
Q18: I have long-term job security
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
30
53
Range
5
Median
4
Mean
3.822
Standard deviation
1.558
3.651
3.994
c.
Question 19: The company consults before implementing
major changes (Category E - How do I feel about the working
environment?)
This question was concerned with employees’ feelings regarding consultation
with employees prior to the implementation of any major organisational
changes. The survey results indicate that 5.6 per cent (n=18) of employees
strongly agreed with this statement and indicated their feeling with a score of 6.
This positive response was supported by 10.6 per cent (n=34) of employees
who scored it as a 5 and 27.7 per cent (n=89) who scored it at 4. In total, 43.9
per cent (n=141) of the respondents agreed with this statement by allocating it a
score between 4 and 6, whereas 56.1 per cent (n=180) of the respondents felt
that there was little or no consultation with the workforce prior to any major
organisational change, as shown in Figure 4.30.
101
Figure 4.30: Histogram - The company consults before implementing major
changes
Table 4.25: Statistics - The company consults before implementing major
changes
Q19: The company consults before implementing major changes
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
69
18
Range
5
Median
3
Mean
3.053
Standard deviation
1.498
2.888
3.217
102
d.
Question 20: AB Company is a friendly place to work
(Category E - How do I feel about the working environment?)
This question was about the perception of whether AB Company is a friendly
place to work at. The survey results denote that 13.1 per cent (n=42) of
employees strongly agreed with this statement and indicated their feeling with a
score of 6 on the measuring scale. This feeling was largely supported by 22.7
per cent (n=73) of employees who scored it at 5 and 21.8 per cent (n=70) who
rated it a 4. In total, 57.6 per cent (n=185) of the respondents felt that AB
company was a friendly place to work, whereas 42.4 per cent (n=136)
disagreed, as indicated in Figure 4.31.
Figure 4.31: Histogram - AB Company is a friendly place to work
deviation of 1.517. The statistics further demonstrate that the true sample
mean was between 3.584 and 3.917, at a confidence level of 95 per cent, as
indicated in Table 4.26.
103
Table 4.26: Statistics - AB Company is a friendly place to work
Q20: AB Company is a friendly place to work
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
38
42
Range
5
Median
4
Mean
3.751
Standard deviation
1.517
3.584
3.917
4.3.6 How do I feel about safety? (Category F)
Questions 21 to 24 measured the sixth measurement category (F) of employee
engagement, as defined in the measuring instrument used. The objective of
this category was to establish how employees feel about safety in the
workplace.
The survey observations, as a whole for category F “How do I feel about
safety?” demonstrate that 68.2 per cent (n=219) of the respondents were
positive about safety, as a whole, in the working environment, whereas 31.8 per
cent (n=102) did not agree with this, as indicated in Figure 4.32.
Figure 4.32: Histogram - How do I feel about safety? (Category F)
104
The mean for “How do I feel about safety?” was calculated to be 4.296, with a
standard deviation of 1.135, as shown in Table 4.27. The respondents’ scores
ranged from 1 to 6, defining the range as 5.
Table 4.27: Statistics - How do I feel about safety? (Category F)
Variable
How do I feel about safety?
321
1
6
SD
4.296 1.135
a.
Question 21: I am able to improve health and safety at work
for myself and colleagues (Category F - How do I feel about
safety?)
This question evaluated employees’ feeling of whether they had the autonomy
to influence health and safety in the workplace. The survey results signify that
21.2 per cent (n=68) of employees strongly agreed with this statement, 20.2 per
cent (n=65) agreed and scored it at 5 and 24.0 per cent (n=77) perceived it to
be a 4. Approximately 35 per cent (n=111) of the respondents scored this
question negatively, meaning they felt they could not influence health and safety
aspects in the organisation. The distribution of responses is shown in Figure
4.33.
Figure 4.33: Histogram - I am able to improve health and safety at work for
myself and colleagues
105
standard deviation of 1.450. The statistics indicate that the true sample mean
was between 3.919 and 4.237, at a confidence level of 95 per cent, as indicated
in Table 4.28.
Table 4.28: Statistics - I am able to improve health and safety at work for myself
and colleagues
Q21: I am able to improve health and safety at work for myself and colleagues
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
16
68
Range
5
Median
4
Mean
4.078
Standard deviation
1.450
3.919
4.237
b.
Question 22: My supervisor and management team take
safety concerns seriously (Category F - How do I feel about
safety?)
This question was concerned with employees’ perception of whether
management was serious about safety in the organisation. The survey results
reveal that 29.6 per cent (n=95) of employees strongly agreed with this
statement and indicated their perception with a score of 6. This perception was
supported by 21.2 per cent (n=68) of employees who scored it as a 5 and 19.0
per cent (n=61) who scored it at 4. In total, 69.8 per cent (n=224) of the
respondents agreed with this statement by scoring it at 4, 5 or 6, whereas 30.2
106
per cent (n=97) disagreed with the notion that management was serious about
safety concerns in the workplace, as shown in Figure 4.34.
Figure 4.34: Histogram - My supervisor and management team take safety
concerns seriously
statistics indicate that the true sample mean was between 4.166 and 4.494, at a
confidence level of 95 per cent, as indicated in Table 4.29.
Table 4.29: Statistics - My supervisor and management team take safety
concerns seriously
Q22: My supervisor and management team take safety concerns seriously
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
20
95
Range
5
Median
5
Mean
4.330
Standard deviation
1.495
4.166
4.494
107
c.
Question 23: The AB Company safety programs / systems
have helped to improve my safety at work (Category F - How
do I feel about safety?)
This question was concerned with whether employees at AB Company felt that
the organisation’s safety programs and systems assist them in improving safety
at work. The survey results indicate that 17.4 per cent (n=56) of employees
strongly agreed with this statement and indicated their feelings with a score of
6. This feeling was largely supported by 22.4 per cent (n=72) of employees
who scored it as 5 and 28.0 per cent (n=90) who rated it a 4. In total, 67.9 per
cent (n=218) of the respondents agreed with this statement by assigning it a
score between 4 and 6, whereas 32.1 per cent (n=103) felt that the company’s
safety programs and systems do not contribute to individual safety in the
workplace, as depicted in Figure 4.35.
Figure 4.35: Histogram - The AB Company safety programs / systems have
helped to improve my safety at work
deviation of 1.483. The statistics further signify that the true sample mean was
Table 4.30.
108
Table 4.30: Statistics - The AB Company safety programs / systems have
helped to improve my safety at work
Q23: The AB Company safety programs / systems
have helped to improve my safety at work
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
28
56
Range
5
Median
4
Mean
3.994
Standard deviation
1.483
3.831
4.157
d.
Question 24: I comply with all safety standard operating
procedures and behavioural safety standards (Category F How do I feel about safety?)
This question focused on employees’ views regarding their compliance with
safety standard operating procedures and behavioural safety in the workplace.
The survey results suggest that 41.7 per cent (n=134) of employees strongly
agreed with this statement and indicated their belief with a score of 6 on the
Likert scale. This feeling was supported by 23.7 per cent (n=76) of employees
who scored it at 5 and 17.1 per cent (n=55) who rated it a 4. In total, 82.6 per
cent (n=265) of the respondents agreed with this statement by allocating a
score between 4 and 6, whereas 17.4 per cent (n=56) felt that they did not
comply with the organisation’s safety standard operating procedures and
behavioural safety standards, as depicted in Figure 4.36.
109
Figure 4.36: Histogram - I comply with all safety standard operating procedures
and behavioural safety standards
(n=134), which defined the range at 5. The median for this data range was
deviation of 1.382. The results indicate that the true sample mean was between
4.630 and 4.934, at a confidence level of 95 per cent, as indicated in Table 4.31
.
Table 4.31: Statistics - I comply with all safety standard operating procedures
Q24: I comply with all safety standard operating procedures
321
Minimum
1
Maximum
6
14
134
Range
5
Median
5
Mean
4.782
Standard deviation
1.382
4.630
4.934
110
4.3.7 Comparative dispersion statistics for qualitative variables
Qualitative variables, specific to the organisation researched, were identified
and motivated in Chapter Three. These included the:
−
functional area in which the employee is active within the organisation;
−
geographic location where the respondent resides, for example a specific
manufacturing plant or sales office;
−
respondents’ age generation; and
−
position level that the respondents holds within the organisation.
The survey results, as recorded and analysed, were compared against each of
the quantitative variables identified. The following section describes the
findings for each of these variables.
a.
Engagement results by functional area
The statistical analysis demonstrates that different levels of employee
engagement exist within the different functional areas of the business.
Engagement in the sales function was significantly higher than the engagement
level in the purchasing function, with respective arithmetic means calculated at
4.30 and 3.44, as shown in Figure 4.37. The manufacturing and services
functions rendered mean engagement scores of approximately 4.
Figure 4.37: Engagement by organisation business function
b.
Engagement results by geographic location
Survey results indicate significant differences in engagement levels based on
geographic locations. The arithmetic mean engagement results for the Gauteng
111
and Port Elizabeth operations were approximately 4 (3.95 and 4.00,
respectively), whereas the sales offices recorded an average engagement
score of 4.51, as shown in Figure 4.38.
Figure 4.38: Engagement by geographic location
c.
Engagement results by age generation
An analysis of the results demonstrate a difference of 12 per cent between the
extremes of the arithmetic mean engagement scores, based on generation.
The highest score recorded was for the generation of respondents born before
1955 (4.43), whereas the lowest score was recorded for the generation born
after 1980 (3.90). The generation born between 1972 and 1980 reported the
second-highest mean engagement score of 4.18, closely followed by a mean
score of 4.02 recorded by the generation born between 1955 and 1964. The
fourth-highest mean engagement score of 3.99 was calculated for the
generation born between 1965 and 1971, as depicted in Figure 4.39.
Figure 4.39: Engagement by age generation
112
d.
Engagement results by position level
The level of position that employees hold within AB Company seems to have an
impact on the engagement scores recorded. The executive leadership of the
organisation reported an arithmetic mean engagement score 16 per cent higher
than that of the hourly-paid staff in the organisation. The executive leadership’s
arithmetic mean engagement score was 4.49, against the calculated score of
3.77 for hourly-paid staff. These results indicate that other salaried staff were
5.1 per cent less engaged than the leadership, whereas senior management
was 8.5 per cent less engaged that the leadership. The second-lowest
engagement was recorded for management, with an engagement mean score
of 4.01. This is more than 10 per cent less than the leadership, as indicated in
Figure 4.40.
Figure 4.40: Engagement by organisational position level
4.3.8 Overall organisational engagement
The dataset was analysed and the overall organisational employee engagement
arithmetic mean for the sample was calculated to be 4.060, with a standard
deviation of 0.898. This is indicative of a dense dispersion of data points
around the mean, as indicated in Figure 4.41.
113
Figure 4.41: Scattergram – Engagement result at AB Company
The statistics further demonstrate that the true sample mean is between 3.962
and 4.159, at a confidence level of 95 per cent, as indicated in Table 4.32.
Table 4.32: Descriptive statistics on total sample collected
Engagement score
321
Median
4.125
Mean
4.060
Standard deviation
0.899
3.962
4.159
4.4
ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE LEAN SUSTAINABILITY ZONE TOOL
The objective of this study was to assess the AB Company for (1) its readiness
for major lean transformation; and (2) to predict whether the transformation will
be sustainable in the future, by using the lean sustainability zone tool developed
by Lucey (2009b).
114
The lean sustainability zone defines an engagement score of 3.75 as the
minimum threshold before lean transformation should be initiated and a score of
4.00 or higher as sufficient for future sustainability of such an initiative. The
mean organisational engagement score for AB Company was 4.060, which then
qualifies it for initiating the lean transformation. The score of 4.060 is
encouraging in that it suggests that the transformation will be sustainable in the
future.
4.4.1 Lean readiness and sustainability assessment - functional areas
In terms of organisational functional areas, the purchasing area’s calculated
engagement score is below the threshold for commencing with major lean
transformation. The manufacturing area indicated its readiness for lean
transformation; however, its engagement score does not support future
sustainability thereof.
Both the sales and services functional areas
demonstrated its readiness, as well as the future sustainability of major lean
transformation, as indicated in Figure 4.42.
Figure 4.42: Functional areas – Readiness and future sustainability of lean
transformation
4.4.2 Lean readiness and sustainability assessment – geographic
location
All operations, except the Gauteng operation, indicated its readiness for, and
potential future sustainability of major lean transformation against the criteria of
geographic locations. The Gauteng operation requires some improvement to
qualify for the future sustainability prediction, as indicated in Figure 4.43.
115
Figure 4.43: Geographical locations – Readiness and future sustainability of
lean transformation
4.4.3 Lean readiness and sustainability assessment – age generation
Engagement scores relative to age generation groups indicate that the
generation born before 1955 reported the highest degree of engagement,
thereby suggesting the readiness and future sustainability of lean
transformation will be supported. All generation groups qualified in terms of the
readiness aspect; however, the generations born between 1965 and 1971 and
after 1980 marginally did not qualify for the sustainability aspect, as shown in
Figure 4.44.
Figure 4.44: Age generations – Readiness and future sustainability of lean
transformation
116
4.4.4 Lean readiness and sustainability assessment – job position
From a job position aspect, all positions qualified for the readiness aspect and
the future sustainability of major lean transformation, except the hourly-paid
staff whose engagement level indicate that it would not support the
sustainability of the lean transformation, as depicted in Figure 4.45.
Figure 4.45: Job position – Readiness and future sustainability of lean
transformation
4.5 SUMMARY
This chapter discussed the results of the survey by describing the sample,
characteristics of the sample and the measuring instrument reliability. The
quantitative data was analysed and reported in terms of its statistical
characteristics, whilst the qualitative variables were discussed relative to the
differences in employee engagement across such variables.
The next chapter will discuss the summary, conclusions and recommendations
to the AB Company. This chapter will use the results of the survey to identify
and focus on areas for improvement to assist in achieving a sustainable lean
implementation at AB Company.
117
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to employ the assessment tool developed by
Lucey (2009b) to assess the level of employee engagement at AB Company
towards both determining the organisational readiness for lean transformation,
as well as to predict the future sustainability of such transformation. It is
expected that this assessment will assist the organisation in exploiting identified
areas that requires intervention to improve the probability of success of the
stated objectives.
5.1 SUMMARY
The research conducted, as discussed in Chapters 2 to 4, is summarised
below.
5.1.1 Chapter 2: Literature review
Chapter 2 of the study provided evidence from other researchers in terms of the
concept of lean manufacturing, employee engagement, the relationship
between the two concepts and the concept of a lean sustainability zone.
a.
Lean manufacturing
Prior research studies into the critical success factors of lean manufacturing
have proved that the human factor plays a major role in the success of lean
transformation and that it enables innovation and continuous improvement. The
human capital aspect of an organisation is claimed to be the primary source of
an organisation’s competitive advantage and lean assists in competitiveness, as
suggested by prior research.
The importance of the human aspect of lean transformation is closely followed
by that of the leadership aspect of transformation. Leaders with a clear, longterm vision, who are people-centric, inspires trust and challenges the status
quo, should be leading such transformation.
It is important that lean
transformation is led, rather than managed.
118
Consultation with all stakeholders prior to the commencement of the change
process is paramount, as is clear and regular communication to engage all
parties in the transformation.
The organisation’s culture is regarded as important and has been found to be a
major contributor to lean implementation failure.
Organisational culture
comprises the values, norms and beliefs of the organisation, not excluding the
expectations of the organisational members. This defines staff attitudes and
behaviours that, ultimately, are conducive to successful lean transformation.
b.
Employee engagement
engagement is critical to successful business performance. This notion is
supported by various researchers, amongst whom Levinson who states that
“engaged employees are the backbone of good working environments where
people are industrious, ethical, and accountable” (Levinson, 2007).
Statistics have shown that, on average, only 20 per cent of employees are
engaged. This is indicative of the untapped opportunity that resides within an
organisation’s human capital asset.
It has been confirmed that a highly-engaged workforce is a sign of a healthy
organisation. Such employees are conscious of the business context and work
together with fellow employees to improve performance for the benefit of the
organisation. In return, the organisation is expected to develop and nurture a
two-way relationship.
Engagement is supported and maximised by the organisational culture and
reputation and its leadership, quality of communication, management styles, as
well as an environment where organisational ethics and trustworthiness provide
the cornerstones of the organisation. Additionally, employees need to feel that
they are valued and that their contributions matter to, and assist the
organisation in achieving its objectives.
119
It is imperative for the organisation to create an environment in which the
human resource perceives the situation to be safe, trustworthy, predictable and
clear in terms of behavioural consequences, without fear of any harmful
consequences to the employee’s self-image, status or career. Individual
development opportunities for an organisation’s human capital are important in
pursuit of higher levels of organisational engagement.
Prior research has shown that the level of employee engagement is further
determined by the age generation of the organisation’s workforce. Different
drivers have been identified to increase the level of engagement of different
generations. It is noteworthy that this study found that, as a rule, older
generations appeared more engaged than their younger counterparts did. This
study further identified the different engagement drivers, in addition to the
common drivers generically applicable to all generations, as summarised in
Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Factors relating to the levels of engagement by generation
Gen Y /
Younger Gen Older Gen X Younger
Millennials
X
Boomers
Factors
Born after
1980
Gender (female)
Physical health
Mental health
Core self-evaluation
Status as a supervisor
Number of working hours
Satisfaction with training and development
Access to flexibility needed
Supervisor support
Work overload
Inclusion
Job security
Born
between
1972 and
1980
Born
between
1965 and
1971
Born
between
1955 and
1964
Born before
1955
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Older
Boomers /
Traditionalist
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
120
Brief explanations of the aspects shown in Table 5.1 are:
−
gender refers to being female;
−
physical health refers to being in better physical health;
−
core self-evaluation refers to having a better perception of oneself;
−
status as a supervisor refers to the position held in the organisation;
−
number of working hours refers to working more hours as being positive;
−
satisfaction with training and development refers to an increased level of
satisfaction;
−
access to flexibility refers to the availability of an increased level of
flexibility;
−
supervisor support refers to enjoying increased levels of supervisory
support;
−
work overload refers to being more overloaded as a positive contributor;
−
perceptions of inclusion means experiencing a feeling of being more
included; and
−
perception of job security refers to higher levels of perceived job security.
c.
The linkage between lean manufacturing and employee
engagement
The human capital side of lean manufacturing is an area that has not been well
researched (Halbesleben 2003; Lucey, 2009b; Robinson et al, 2004). The
relationship and correlation between employee engagement and the success of
lean transformation has, however, been confirmed by Vidal (2007). Lucey et al
(2005) further claim that employee engagement is central to the success of lean
manufacturing.
d.
The lean sustainability zone
other major change intervention, is the inability of organisations to sustain the
changed environment into the future to realise the benefits thereof (Bridges,
2002).
121
There is little research that support the notion that organisations know in
advance whether a major change program will be successful or not. Carnall
(2003) questioned the existence of “an index for change readiness” toward
reducing the failure rates of major change initiatives. Lucey (2009b) accepted
this challenge and defined a lean sustainability zone, a tool that could be
applied to assess whether organisations are sufficiently engaged for successful
The lean sustainability zone was defined to address two aspects of potential
lean transformation. The first was to establish whether an organisation is ready
to commence with lean transformation, whilst the second aspect deals with the
potential of the future sustainability of the initiated transformation.
5.1.2 Chapter 3: Research methodology and design
Chapter 3 of the study was concerned with the design of the research
conducted at AB Company.
A positivistic research paradigm was utilised for this research, underpinned by
quantitative data collected from the organisation. Furthermore, qualitative
variables, such as the functional business area, geographic location, job
position and age generation of respondents, were investigated
.
The lean sustainability zone measuring instrument, as developed by Lucey
(2009b), was used in a survey conducted at the organisation from late August
2010 to early September 2010.
The data collected was scrutinised and cleaned before it was analysed using
the computer program XLSTAT (XLSTAT, n.d.).
5.1.3 Chapter 4: Results and interpretation
The results of the survey conducted at AB Company were discussed in Chapter
4. The survey consisted of six sections (A to F) of employee engagement, each
section underpinned by four questions. The respondents’ responses to each
122
question was discussed, as well as the six areas of employee engagement.
This could be used to identify those areas in the organisation that requires focus
toward improving the organisation’s level of engagement. The results were
contrasted against the lean assessment tool and the readiness and future
sustainability of the transformation were measured and reported on.
The lean sustainability zone defines an engagement score of 3.75 as the
minimum threshold before lean transformation should be initiated, whilst a score
of 4.00 or higher, is considered sufficient for the future sustainability of the
transformation. The survey results, from an overall organisational perspective,
calculated to the arithmetic mean score of 4.06. According to the lean
assessment tool used for this study this indicates that the organisation, as a
whole, is ready to commence lean transformation and that there is a high
probability that such transformation will be sustainable in the future.
The research conducted included variables such as functional areas,
geographical locations, age generation and the job positions of the
respondents. The lean assessment tool was used to ascertain the engagement
levels from these perspectives. The results indicate that the levels of
engagement differed in the functional areas. The mean scores for the
purchasing (3.44), manufacturing (3.96), sales (4.30) and services areas (4.09)
indicate that all functional areas, except the purchasing area, are ready to
embark on lean transformation. The measurement tool further indicated that
only the sales and services areas would sustain the lean transformation in the
future. This further suggests that the manufacturing area is ready to start the
initiative, but indications are that it would not be able to sustain the
transformation.
The geographic locations of the organisation reported slight differences in levels
of engagement, with Sales Offices, Port Elizabeth-based operations and
Gauteng-based operations reporting scores of 4.51, 4.00 and 3.95 respectively.
This indicates, from a location perspective, that all locations are ready to
123
commence with the lean initiative and that the probability of sustaining this in
the future is quite high.
From an age generation perspective, the survey results reflect that all
generations are ready to commence the lean transformation, as evidenced by
scores higher than 3.75. To ensure future sustainability the generations born
between 1965 and 1971 and after 1980 require increased levels of engagement
as the reported scores for these generations were 3.99 and 3.90 respectively.
Job position as a variable suggest that all job levels are ready for lean
transformation and future sustainability, except the hourly-paid staff that
recorded a score of 3.77. This barely qualifies them to commence with lean
transformation. Scores for the other job positions varied from 4.01 to 4.49.
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
The organisation, as a whole, seems to be ready to commence with lean
transformation and indications are that such transformation would be
sustainable in the future. The organisational variables investigated, however,
indicate there are areas that require intervention to increase the likelihood of
success, as indicated in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Organisational variables and engagement levels
Sample
Function
Geographic Location
Generation
Job Position
Category
Purchasing
Manufacturing
Sales Offices
Services
Gauteng Operation
PE Operation
Sales Offices
Born before 1955
Born between 1955 and 1964
Born after 1980
Executive Leadership
Snr. GM or GM
Management (P8 to P5)
Other salaried staff
Hourly staff
Readiness to
commence the lean
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Future sustainability
of the transformation
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
124
The purchasing functional area is not ready for the commencement of lean
transformation, whereas indications are that the Port Elizabeth-based operation
will not sustain the transformation. In terms of age generation, the employees
born between 1965 and 1971, as well as those born after 1980, present
opportunities to increase engagement and future sustainability throughout the
organisation. The hourly-paid staff is ready to commence the transformation,
but requires special attention to ensure that the transformation is sustained in
the future.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
The engagement scores for AB Company, by engagement category, are
aligned with the objectives of this study, as depicted in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1: Organisational engagement by category
It is apparent that engagement categories A, B and F require ongoing
maintenance, rather than immediate intervention. Categories C and E, and to a
greater extent category D, needs focused attention to drive the overall
engagement levels in the organisation.
Evaluating the underlying questions of category D, the researcher found that the
means scores that were particularly low (below a mean of 4.0) originated from
the following questions:
−
I am regularly asked how to improve my work;
−
I am consulted about plans that affect me; and
−
my team holds regular meetings to discuss continuous improvements.
125
These questions highlight the importance of a communications strategy that
delivers clear communication to all organisational stakeholders, as well as the
need for a consultative process. AB Company should develop an improved
communications and consultative strategy and implement it as soon as possible
to address this very important facet of employee engagement.
In terms of category C, the underpinning questions with arithmetic mean scores
below 4.0 were found to be:
−
we have good communication within and between teams; and
−
people are willing to confront problems openly, rather than hide them.
These questions again highlight the need for good and clear communication, as
well as the fear for harmful consequences to the employee’s self-image, status
or career. The organisation should promote and embrace a culture where
employees are allowed to confront problems, as it is in the ultimate interest of
the organisation to address problems at root level. The organisation should
further promote communication between teams to foster teamwork in the pursuit
of organisational excellence. Communication is currently well-established
within teams as part of the Mission Directed Work Teams initiative; however,
the survey score indicates this as a problem area. It may be assumed that the
problem stems from communication between teams.
The supporting questions to category E with arithmetic mean scores below 4.0
were found to be:
−
I have long-term job security;
−
the company consults before implementing major changes; and
−
AB Company is a friendly place to work.
Consultation has again been highlighted as a problem area and needs to be
addressed as indicated previously.
The researcher concludes that a
relationship exists between the perception of job security and organisational
friendliness. The organisation should review its values and focus on promoting
this to the employees, thereby allowing employees to experience the feeling of
126
being valued and being in a safe work environment. The problems previously
identified in terms of communication and consultation probably contribute to
employees’ negative perceptions regarding the work environment.
The study revealed a significant difference in the engagement level between the
functional areas, with the purchasing area not sufficiently engaged to
commence lean transformation. It is proposed that a separate, detailed study
be conducted in this area to identify the root causes for the recorded results.
AB Company should undertake this as a priority activity by in terms of planned
From a geographic perspective, it is recommended that the different operations
implement a best practice sharing intervention to ensure that these practices
are shared between all the operations, thereby leveraging organisational
benefits.
The various age generations reflect different engagement scores. AB Company
should investigate the possibility of being more flexible in terms of the
organisational offering to satisfy the needs of the various generations, as
indicated in Table 5.1. The researcher acknowledge that it may not be an easy
intervention, but is should be objectively reviewed and accommodated where
possible as it will ultimately contribute to improve business performance.
In terms of organisational job position, all arithmetic means scores were
recorded in excess of 4.0, except for that of hourly-paid staff.
It is
recommended that this phenomenon be further investigated to establish the
root causes for this level of engagement.
5.4
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The following limitations to this research were identified by the researcher:
−
the results of this study were limited to the AB Company;
−
the survey conducted, specifically pertaining to the hourly-paid staff, was
geographically limited to the Port Elizabeth-based operation and may
127
affect the interpretation of the results for other geographic areas
pertaining to hourly-paid staff;
−
the survey results are based on responses of 38.8 per cent of the
population;
−
the results were based on data collected by means of a convenience
sampling method and this may affect the reliability as a whole; and
−
the consolidation of operations in the Gauteng area may have had an
influence on the survey results, more so than those collected from the
affected area.
5.5
CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
It is suggested that the proposed recommendations be implemented throughout
the organisation as a matter of urgency, with special emphasis on those areas
that have reported a sub-qualifying score, as measured with the measurement
instrument.
The organisation should measure the employee engagement at regular
intervals. This should, at first, be conducted six-monthly to ensure that the
engagement levels remain at acceptable levels to sustain lean transformation.
The Gauteng engagement levels should be remeasured once the situation
regarding consolidation has normalised. Based against the outcome of these
assessments, actions should be implemented to increase organisational
engagement.
A significant difference was recorded between the hourly-paid staff and all other
job positions, whilst a relatively poor engagement score was recorded for the
purchasing function. A study should be undertaken to establish the root causes
of the significantly lower level of engagement at shop floor level and in the
purchasing functional area. The hourly-paid staff is a very important component
of the organisation’s human capital as these are the employees who actually
“touch” the product manufactured, a direct value-adding activity.
128
REFERENCE LIST
Alexander, L.D. 1985. Successfully implementing strategic decisions. Long
Range Planning, 18(3), 91-97.
Allen, J.H. 1997. Lean and mean. Journal of Workplace Learning, 9, 1-6.
Allen, J.H. 2000. Lean and mean. Journal of Manufacturing Engineering,
2000, 1-6.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F. & May, D. 2004.
Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact
follower attitudes and behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(8), 801-823.
Bachmann, D. & Elfrink, J. 1996. Tracking the progress of e-mail versus snailmail. Marketing Research, 8(2), 31-35.
Bailey, J. & Yost, J. 2007. Encyclopedia of Sociology. New York: Macmillan.
Baker, P. 2002. Why is lean so far off. Works Management, October, 1-4.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. & Taris, T.W. 2008. Work
engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work
& Stress, 22(3), 187-200.
Bartezzagni, E. 1999. Evolution of production models. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 19(2), 2-15.
Bennis, W. 1994. On Becoming a Leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Bhasin, S. & Burcher, P. 2006. Lean viewed as a philosophy. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(1), 56-72.
129
Bicheno, J. 1999. The New Lean Toolbox. London: Picsie.
Bidanda, B., Ariyawongrat, P., Needy, K. & Normam, B. 2001. Human related
issues in manufacturing cell design, implementation and operation.
International Journal of Computers and Engineering, 1, 2-9.
Boonstra, J., (ed). 2002. The Psychological Management of Organizational
Change. London: Wiley.
Bridges, W. 2002. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change.
Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
Brief, A. & Nord, W.R. 1990. Meanings of Occupational Work. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Brown, S.P. 1996. A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on
job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235-255.
Bryman, A. 1992. Charisma & leadership in organizations. London: Sage.
Buckingham, M. & Coffman, C. 1999. First, break all the rules: What the world’s
greatest managers do differently. New York: Simon & Shuster.
Butterfat, L.L.C. n.d. PHPESP. [Online]. Available:
http://www.butterfat.net/wiki/Projects/phpESP
(accessed: 12 September 2010).
Capelli, P. & Rogovsky, N. 1996. New work systems and skill requirements.
International Labour Review, (133), 2-14.
th
Carnall, C.A. 2003. Managing change in organizations (4 ed.). Essex,
England: Pearson Education.
130
Cartwright, S, & Holmes, N. 2006. The meaning of work: The challenge of
regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource
Management Review, 16, 199-208.
Cascio, W.F. 2007. Evidence-based management and the marketplace for
ideas. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1009-1012.
Christian, M.S. & Slaughter, J.E. 2007. Work engagement: A meta-analytic
review and directions for research in an emerging area. Proceedings of the
th
66 annual meeting of the Academy of Management. Birmingham: Academy
of Management.
Chung, C. 1996. Human issues influencing the successful implementation of
advanced manufacturing technologies. Engineering and Technology
Management, 3-12.
Clifton, J. 2002. Winning business in the emotional economy [Online].
Available: http://gmj.gallup.com/content/724/winning-business-in-theemotional-economy.aspx
(accessed: 2 July 2010).
Coetzer, C.F. & Rothman, S. 2007. Job demands, job resources and work
engagement of employees in a manufacturing organisation. The Southern
African Business Review, 11(3), 17-32.
nd
Collis, J. & Hussey, R. 2003. Business research (2 ed.). New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Corporate Executive Board. 2004. The employee engagement service centre
[Online]. Available:
http://www.executiveboard.com/EXBD/Images/ExecutiveSummaryEmployee
Engagement.pdf
131
Dimancescu, D., Hines, P. & Rich, N. 1997. The Lean Enterprise. New York:
Amacom.
Duck, J.D. 1993. Managing Change: The Art of Balancing. Harvard Business
Review, November – December 109-118.
Dulye & Co. 2006. 5 Ways to Keep New Hires Engaged [Online]. Available:
http://www.lmdulye.com
(accessed: 22 November 2009).
Elliott, G. 2001. Achieving manufacturing excellence. Industrial Management,
2-7.
Emery, F. 1969. Systems Thinking. London: Penguin.
Emiliani, M.L. 2003. Linking leaders’ beliefs to their behaviours and
competencies. Management Decision, 41(9), 893-910.
Endres, G.M. & Mancheno-Smoak, L. 2008. The human resource craze:
Human performance improvement and employee engagement. Organization
Development Journal, 26(1), 69-78.
Ernst & Young. 1992. International quality study: Best practices report.
Cleveland: Ernst & Young and American Quality Foundation.
Fisher, C.D., Schoenfeldt, L.F. & Shaw, J.B. 2006. Advanced human resource
management. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Fleming, J.H., Coffman, C. & Harter, J.K. 2005. Manage your human Sigma.
Harvard Business Review, 83(7), 106-15.
132
Found, P., Beale, J., Hines, P., Naim, M., Rich, N., Sarmiento, R. & Thomas, A.
2006. A theoretical framework for economic sustainability of manufacturing.
Cardiff Business School Working Paper Series [Online]. Available:
http://www.caerdydd.ac.uk/carbs/research/workingpapers/logistics/A%20Th
eoretical%20Framework%20for%20Economic%20Sustainability%20of%20M
anufacturing.pdf
Found, P.A. & Harvey, R. 2006. The role of leaders in the initiation and
implementation of manufacturing process change. The International Journal
of Knowledge, Culture & Change Management, 6, 35-46.
Found, P.A., Van Dun, D.H. & Fei, F. 2009. Multi-level management and
th
leadership skills in lean organizations. Proceedings of the 20 Annual
Production and Operations Management Society Conference. Orlando, FL.
Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. & Taylor, C.R. 2004. The race for talent: Retaining
st
and engaging workers in the 21 century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3),
12-25.
Gallup Consulting Group. 2005. Employee engagement: The employee side of
the human sigma equation [Online]. Available:
http://gallop.com/content/default.aspx?ci=52
(accessed: 25 October 2009).
Genaidy, A.M. & Karwowski, W. 2003. Human performance in lean production
environment: Critical assessment and research framework. Human Factors
and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 13(4), 317-330.
Goffman, E. 1961. Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction.
London: Allen Lane.
133
Gravetter, F.J. & Forzano, L.B. 2009. Research methods for the behavioural
sciences. Belmont, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Grint, K. 1997. Fuzzy management: Contemporary ideas and practices at work.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. 2003. Burnout and engagement: Correlates and
measurement. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences
& Engineering. US: Vol 64(1-B), 451.
Hancock, W. & Zaycko, J. 1998. Lean production: Implementation problems.
Institute of Industrial Engineers Solutions, 30, 1-9.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L. 2002. Business-unit-level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business
outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.
Henderson, B., Larco, J.L. & Martin, S. 1999. Lean transformation: How to
change your business into a lean enterprise. Richmond, VA: Oaklea Press.
Henry, G.T. 1990. Practical Sampling. London: Sage.
Heymans, B. 2002. Leading the lean enterprise. Industrial Management, 44(5),
28-33.
Hines, P., Jones, D. & Rich, N. 1998. Lean logistics. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 27(3/4), 153-173.
Hines, P., Lemming, R., Jones, D.T., Cousins, P. & Rich, N. 2000. Value
stream management: Strategy and excellence in the supply chain. Harlow:
Financial Times Prentice Hall.
134
Hirschhorn, L. 2002. Campaigning for change. Harvard Business Review,
80(7), 98-104.
Hobfoll, S.E., Johnson, R.J., Ennis, N. & Jackson, A.P. 2003. Resources loss,
resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 632-643.
Holbeche, L. 2004. How to make work more meaningful. Personnel Today,
6(8), 26.
Johnson, M. 2004. The new rules of engagement: life ‐work balance and
employee commitment. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. & Patton, G.K. 2001. The job
satisfaction‐job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407.
Judge, T.A., Van Vianen, A.E. & De Pater, I. 2004. Emotional stability, core
self-evaluations, and job outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda
for future research, Human Performance, 17, 325-346.
Kahn, W.A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Karlson, C. & Ahlstrom, P. 1996. Assessing changes towards lean production.
Journal of Operations and Production Management, 16, 2-11.
Kettinger, W. & Grover, V. 1995. Towards a theory of business process change
management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(1), 9-30.
Koenigsaecker, G. 2000. Lean manufacturing in practice. Industry Week,
October, 1-8.
135
Kotter, J.P. 1993. Culture impacts the bottom line. Executive Excellence, 10,
12-13.
Kotter, J.P. 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard
Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.
Kotter, J.P. 1996. Kill complacency. Fortune, 134(3), 168-171.
Kotter, J.P. 1999. Change leadership. Executive Excellence, 16(4), 16-17.
Kotter, J.P. & Schlesinger, L.A. 1979. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard
Business Review, 57(2), 106-114.
Landsbergis, P.A., Adler, P.S., Babson, S., Johnson, J., Kaminski, M., Lessin,
N., McDuffie, J.P., Nishiyama, K., Parker, S. & Richardson, C. 1998. Lean
production and worker health: A discussion. New Solutions, 8, 499-523.
Landsbergis, P.A., Cahill, J. & Schnall, P. 1999. The impact of lean production
and related systems of work organization on worker health. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 108-130.
Lathin, D. & Mitchell, R. 2001a. Lean manufacturing. American Society for
Quality Journal, 2-9.
Lathin, D. & Mitchell, R. 2001b. Lean manufacturing: Techniques, people and
culture. Quality Congress Proceedings, 2-6.
Lathin, D. & Mitchell, R. 2001c. Learning from mistakes. Quality Progress, 2-9.
Lebow, J. 1999. The last word on lean manufacturing. Institute of Industrial
Engineers Solutions, September, 1-8.
136
Levinson, E. 2007. Developing High Employee Engagement Makes Good
Business Sense [Online]. Available:
http://www.interactionassociates.com/ideas/developing-high-employeeengagement-makes-good-business-sense
(accessed: 15 August 2010).
Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.
Lewis, J. 2001. Set the stage for success. Upholstery Design & Management,
14(9), 1-4.
Liker, J.K. 1996. Becoming Lean. New York: Free Press.
Liker, J.K. 2004. The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's
greatest manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Liker, J.K. 2008. Learning from Toyota: Creating a culture of continuous
improvement. Paper presented at the 2008 TBM Lean Leaders Conference,
Michigan.
Liker, J.K. & Meier, D. 2006. The Toyota way fieldbook: A practical guide for
implementing Toyota’s 4P’s. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Liker, J.K. & Morgan, J.M. 2006. The Toyota way in services: The case of lean
product development. Perspectives – Academy of Management, 20(2), 5-20.
Little, P. & Little, B. 2006. Employee engagement: Conceptual issues. Journal
of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 10(1), 111-120.
Lockwood, N.R. 2007. Leveraging employee engagement for competitive
advantage: HR’s strategic role. Society for Human Resource Management
Quarterly, 1(3).
137
Loehr, J. 2005. Become fully engaged. Leadership Excellence, 22(2), 14.
Lucey, J.J. 2008a. The state of lean manufacturing in the UK - 2001 to 2006.
Journal of the Institute of Management Services, 52(3), 16 - 25.
Lucey, J.J. 2008b. Why is the failure rate for organisation change so high?
Management Services, 52(4), 10-18.
Lucey, J.J. 2009a. Action research case study in transacting a major change at
pace. Management Services, 53(1), 9-16.
Lucey, J.J. 2009b. The concept of a lean sustainability zone. Management
Services, 53(3), 8-13.
Lucey, J.J., Bateman, N. & Hines, P. 2005. Why major lean transitions have not
been sustained. Management Services, 49(2), 9-14.
Macey, W.H. & Schneider, B. 2008. The meaning of employee engagement.
Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 1, 3–30.
Maskell, B. 2000. Lean accounting for lean manufacturers. Manufacturing
Engineering, December, 2-5.
Maslach, C. & Leiter, M.P. 1997. The truth about burnout. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. & Harter, L.M. 2004. The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human
spirit at work. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 77(1),
11-37.
McBain, R. 2007. The practice of engagement: Research into current employee
engagement practice. Strategic HR Review, 6(6), 16-19.
138
McNabb, D. & Sepic, F. 1995. Culture climate. Public Productivity and
Management Review, 18, 2-13.
Menzias, J.M. & Starbuck, W.H. 2003. Studying the accuracy of managers’
perceptions: The odyssey continues. British Journal of Management, 14, 4547.
Moore, R. 2001. Comparing the major manufacturing improvement methods.
Plant Engineering, 1-3.
Moore, R. 2003. Change: How do we manage it? Plant Engineering, 57(4), 2226.
Morgan, G. & Harmon, R. 1999. Non-probability sampling [Online]. Available:
http://www.musc.edu/bmt738/McGreevy/subtwo.htm#2
National Research Foundation. n.d. Economic growth and international
competitiveness [Online]. Available: http://www.nrf.ac.za/focusareas/growth/
(accessed: 7 March 2009).
Needy, K., Bidanda, B. & Arinyawongrat, P. 2002. Assessing human capital.
Engineering Management Journal, 14(3), 1-9.
O'Corrbui, D. & Corboy, M. 1999. The seven deadly sins of strategy.
Management Accounting, 10, 1-5.
Ohno, T. 1988. Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production.
New York: Productivity Press.
Olexa, R. 2002a. Manufacturing lite with lean. Forming and Fabrication, 9, 1-6.
139
Olexa, R. 2002b. NOK's lean journey. Manufacturing Engineering, 2-8.
Philips, E. 2002. Pros and cons of lean manufacturing. Forming and
Fabricating, 1-5.
Pitt-Catsouphes, M. & Matz-Costa, C. 2009. Engaging the 21st century multigenerational workforce: Findings from the Age & Generations Study [Online].
Available: http://www.bc.edu/research/agingandwork/metaelements/pdf/publications/IB20Engagement.pdf
Porter, M.E. & Schwab, K. 2008. The global competitiveness report: 2008 2009 [Online]. Available:
http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Re
port/index.htm
(accessed: 8 March 2009).
Prabhu, V. 1992. Lean production and the single European market.
Manchester: UMIST.
Pullin, J. 2002. Blazing a trail through change management. Professional
Engineering, 15(17), 40-41.
Rama Devi, V. 2009. Employee engagement is a two-way street. Human
Resource Management International Digest, 17(2), 3-4.
Repenning, N. & Sterman, J. 2001. Creating and sustaining process
improvement. California Management Review, Summer, 1-8.
Robertson, I.T. & Cooper, C.L. 2010. Full engagement: The integration of
employee engagement and psychological well-being. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 31(4), 324-336.
140
Robertson-Smith, G. & Markwick, C. 2009. Employee engagement: A review of
current thinking [Online]. Available: http://www.employmentstudies.co.uk/pubs/report.php?id=469
Robinson, D. 2007. Engagement is marriage of various factors at work.
Employee Benefits Magazine. March.
Robinson, D., Hooker, H. & Hayday, S. 2007. Engagement: The continuing
story. Institute for Employment Studies, (Report 447).
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. & Hayday, S. 2004. The Drivers of Employee
Engagement. Institute for Employment Studies, (Report 408).
Saks, A.M. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Sanchez, A. & Perez, M. 2000. Lean indicators and manufacturing strategies.
Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(11), 1-13.
Schaufeli, W. & Bakker, A.B. 2004. Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of
Organisational Behaviour, 25, 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanove, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. & Bakker, A.B. 2002. The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor
analysis approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
Schmitt, N. W., & Klimoski, R. J. (1991).
resources management.
Research methods in human
Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing
Company.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. & Guzzo, R. 1996. Creating a climate and culture for
sustainable organisational change. Organisational Dynamics, 24, 6-19.
141
Seddon, J. 2005. Freedom from command and control: Rethinking
management for lean service. New York: Productivity Press.
Seijts, G.H. & Crim, D. 2006. What engages employees the most or, the ten C's
of employee engagement. Ivey Business Journal, 70, 1-5.
Sheridan, J. 2000. Growing with lean. Industry Week, 1-5.
Shingo, S. 1989. A study of the Toyota production system from an industrial
engineering viewpoint. Portland, Oregon: Productivity Press.
Siekman, P. 2000. Cessna tackles lean manufacturing. Fortune, 141, 222-231.
Sinclair, A., Robertson‐Smith, G. & Hennessy, J. 2008. The Management
Agenda. West Sussex: Roffey Park Institute.
Sohal, A. & Eggleston, A. 1994. Lean production: experience amongst
Australian organisations. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 14, 1-17.
Sonnentag, S. 2003. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behaviour: A
new look at the interface between non‐work and work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(3), 518–528.
Souza Wildermuth, C.D. & Pauken, P.D. 2008. A perfect match: Decoding
employee engagement – Part I: Engaging cultures and leaders. Industrial
and Commercial Training, 40(3), 122-28.
Standard, C. & Davis, D. 2000. Lean thinking for competitive advantage.
Automobile Manufacturing and Production, 1-3.
142
Strebel, P. 1966. Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business
Review, May-June, 86-92.
Towers Perrin. 2008. Closing the engagement gap: A road map for driving
superior business performance. Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study
2007-2008 [Online]. Available:
http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=HRS/USA/2008/200
803/GWSGlobalReport2007200831208.pdf
(accessed: 20 January 2010).
Towers Perrin, 2005. Managing the workforce for competitive advantage: What
it takes to attract, retain and engage employees today. Towers Perrin Global
Workforce Study China [Online]. Available:
http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=HRS/USA/2007/200
705/GWS China.pdf
Turfa, P. 2003. Wise potato chip factory embraces lean philosophy. Tribune
Business News, 9 March, 1-4.
UCLA Academic Technology Services. n.d. Introduction to SAS [Online].
Available: http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/faq/alpha.html
Utley, D., Westbrook, J. & Turner, S. 1997. The relationship between
Herzberg's two-factor theory and quality improvement implementation.
Engineering Management Journal, 9, 2-11.
Van Dun, D.H., Hicks, J.N., Wilderom, C.P. & Van Lieshout, A.J. 2008. Work
values and behaviours of middle managers in lean organisations: A new
research approach towards lean leadership. Paper presented at the 11th biannual conference of the international society of the study of work and
organizational values. Singapore.
143
Vance, R.J. 2006. Employee engagement and commitment: A guide to
understanding, measuring and increasing engagement in your organization.
Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.
Vasilash, G. 2000. How Toyota does it. Automotive Manufacturing and
Production, 2000, 1-8.
Vasilash, G. 2001. Lean: A silver lining. Automotive Manufacturing and
Production, 1-3.
Vazirani, N. 2007. Employee engagement. SIES College of Management
Studies - Working Paper Series, 2-15.
Vidal, M. 2007. Lean production, worker empowerment, and job satisfaction: A
qualitative analysis and critique. Critical Sociology, 33, 247–278.
Wagner, R. & Harter, J.K. 2006. The 12 elements of great managing. New
York: Gallup.
Wefald, A.J. & Downey, R.G. 2009a. Construct dimensionality of engagement
and its relation with satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 91-111.
Wefald, A.J. & Downey, R.G. 2009b. Job engagement in organizations: Fad,
fashion, or folderol? Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 30(1), 141-45.
Welbourne, T. 2007. Engagement beyond the fad and into the executive suite.
Leader to Leader, 44, 45-51.
Wellins, R.S., Bernthal, P. & Phelps, M. n.d. Employee engagement: The key to
realising competitive advantage [Online]. Available:
http://www.ddiworld.com/pdf/ddiemployeeengagementmg.pdf
144
Wellins, R. & Concelman, J. 2005. Creating a culture for engagement.
Workforce Performance Solutions [Online]. Available:
http://www.ddiworld.com/pdf/wpsengagementar.pdf
Wickens, P.D. 1995. The Ascendant Organization. London: MacMillan Press.
Womack, J.P. 2008. The Power of Purpose, Process and People [Online].
Available: http://www.lean.org/events/may 2008 webinar transcript.pdf
Womack, J.P. & Jones, D.T. 1996. Lean Thinking. London: Simon & Schuster.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. & Roos, D. 1990. The machine that changed the
world. New York: Harper Collins.
XLSTAT [Online]. n.d. Available: http://www.xlstat.com/
Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K., Houson, D., Witt, D. & Diehl, J. 2009. Beyond
engagement: Toward a framework and operational definition for employee
work passion. Human Resource Development Review, 8(3), 300-326.
145
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: PERMISSION TO USE MEASURING INSTRUMENT
From: John Lucey [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 21 July 2010 10:12 AM
To: 'Carel Kleinhans'
Subject: RE: Permission requested
Carel, I have attached the questionnaire. You may have to slightly change
the questions to suit your company. I have also attached Chapter 5 of my
thesis which details the findings. My tel no is UK 01400 281933.If I can be
of further assistance pls contact me.
Kind Regards John Lucey
From: Carel Kleinhans [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2010 07:57
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Permission requested
Importance: High
Dear Dr. Lucey
I am a MBA student in South Africa currently busy with my treatise. I have been following your
research closely regarding employee engagement and the sustainability of the lean transformation.
My subject for the treatise is to conduct an employee engagement survey at the company where I
work (AB Company - WWW.ABCOMPANY.CO.ZA) with the view of determining the future
sustainability of our lean implementation. In order to use a validated test instrument, I herewith
respectfully request your permission to use the EE questionnaire that you have used to determine
the “lean sustainability zone”. This would then mean that I would be able to compare directly with
the sustainability zone as defined in your work.
I do undertake to only use this only for this academic research as a “once off” and to share the
outcome only with my employer and the Nelson Mandela Metropole University (NMMU) as required
for my treatise.
I will appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to your response.
Thanks and regards
Carel Kleinhans
146
APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Please tick appropriate block - only one per question!
Buy
Make
Please indicate the functional area in which you operate:
Sell
Services (HR, IT, FI, etc.)
Gauteng Operation
Please indicate the Branch or Operation where you reside:
PE Operation
Sales Offices
Born after 1980
Born between 1972 & 1980
Please select your generation:
Born before 1955
Snr. GM or GM
Please select the Position Level that you hold in the Aberdare Group:
Hourly Staff
Please tick appropriate block - only one per row! Strongly Disagree
HOW DO I FEEL ABOUT MY JOB?
1
2
3
Strongly Agree
4
5
6
1 I AM CLEAR OF WHAT IS EXPECTED OF ME IN MY JOB
2 MY WORK COLLEAGUES AND I WORK TO THE SAME STANDARDS
3 I HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY TRAINED FOR THE TASKS I DO
4 THE PLANNING AND ORGANISING OF THE DAYS WORK IS GOOD
HOW DO I FEEL ABOUT MYSELF?
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
Strongly Agree
4
5
6
5 MY WORK GIVES ME A STRONG SENSE OF ACHIEVEMENT
6 PEOPLE ARE USUALLY THANKED FOR A GOOD JOB OR FOR SOME SPECIAL WORK
7 I FEEL I COULD TAKE ON MORE RESPONSIBILITY
8 I WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO MAKING AB Company A VERY SUCCESSFUL COMPANY
HOW DO I FEEL ABOUT TEAM WORKING?
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
Strongly Agree
4
5
6
9 MANAGEMENT WANT TEAM WORKING TO BE THE BASIS OF THE WAY WE WORK
10 WE HAVE GOOD COMMUNICATION WITHIN AND BETWEEN TEAMS
11 I AM PART OF GROUPS THAT HAVE REAL TEAM SPIRIT
12 PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO CONFRONT PROBLEMS OPENLY RATHER THAN HIDE THEM
HOW DO I FEEL ABOUT IMPROVING MY JOB?
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
Strongly Agree
4
5
6
13 I AM REGULARLY ASKED HOW TO IMPROVE MY WORK
14 I AM CONSULTED ABOUT PLANS THAT AFFECT ME
15 MY TEAM HOLDS REGULAR MEETINGS TO DISCUSS CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTS
16 MY TEAM MEASURES THE QUALITY OF THE WORK AND STRIVES FOR IMPROVEMENT
HOW DO I FEEL ABOUT THE WORKING ENVIRONMENT
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
Strongly Agree
4
5
6
17 I ACCEPT THAT THE CHANGES BEING MADE ARE NECESSARY
18 I HAVE LONG TERM JOB SECURITY
19 THE COMPANY CONSULT BEFORE IMPLEMENTING MAJOR CHANGES
20 AB Company IS A FRIENDLY PLACE TO WORK
HOW DO I FEEL ABOUT SAFETY?
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
Strongly Agree
4
21 I AM ABLE TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH & SAFETY AT WORK FOR MYSELF & COLLEAGUES
22 MY SUPERVISOR AND MANAGEMENT TEAM TAKE SAFETY CONCERNS SERIOUSLY
23 THE ABERDARE SAFETY PROGRAMS / SYSTEMS HAVE HELPED TO IMPROVE MY SAFETY AT WORK
24 I COMPLY WITH ALL SAFETY STANDARD OPERATION PROCEDURES & BEHAVIOURAL SAFETY STANDARDS
Source: Adapted from (Lucey, 2009)
147
5
6
APPENDIX 3: INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS
Dear Colleague
My name is Carel Kleinhans, located at the XYZ manufacturing site. I am currently a student at the
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU) in Port Elizabeth. For my dissertation, I am doing
a study on the change readiness of AB Company, more specifically pertaining to a lean
implementation. The title of the dissertation is “Applying a lean engagement assessment tool to
improve the probability of a successful lean implementation at AB Company”
As you are in the employ of AB Company and could provide valuable feedback, I am inviting you to
participate in this research study by completing the survey. I have obtained due permission from the
AB Company executive to conduct this survey.
I want to assure you of complete confidentiality regarding your response, as data submitted will be
anonymous. The questionnaire should require less than five minutes to complete, subject to
network efficiency.
Thank you for taking the time to assist me in my educational endeavours. The data collected will
provide useful information regarding the level of employee engagement at AB Company as well as
our change readiness for a lean implementation. The results of the study and recommendations will
be made available to AB Company against acceptance of the study by the NMMU.
Completion and return of the questionnaire will indicate your willingness to participate in this study.
Should you require additional information or have questions, please contact me on
[email protected], alternatively on 041-555 5555.
Yours sincerely
Carel Kleinhans
Engineering Manager – AB Company
148
APPENDIX 4: SURVEY RESPONSES BY DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLE
Sample
No. of
observations
Category
Purchasing
Function
Geographic Location
321
321
Generation
321
Job Position
321
Company Tenure
321
Frequency per Rel. frequency
category
per category (%)
9
2.8
Manufacturing
167
Sales
91
52.0
28.3
Services
54
16.8
Gauteng Operation
115
35.8
PE Operation
Sales Offices
Born before 1955
Born after 1980
Snr. GM or GM
Hourly staff
< 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
> 5 years
157
49
29
94
89
63
46
3
7
73
144
94
9
21
37
254
48.9
15.3
9.0
29.3
27.7
19.6
14.3
0.9
2.2
22.7
44.9
29.3
2.8
6.5
11.5
79.1
149
APPENDIX 5: SUMMARY STATISTICS OF QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS
Sample
Q 1 - I am clear of what is
expected of me in my job
Q 2 - My colleagues and I work to
same standards
Q 3 - I have been adequately
trained for tasks I do
Lower
Upper
No.
Freq. Freq.
Standard bound
bound
of Min. Max. of
of Range Median Mean deviation
on mean on mean
obs.
min. max.
(95%)
(95%)
321
1
6
11
148
5
5
4.966
1.305
4.822
5.109
321
1
6
25
66
5
5
4.190
1.504
4.025
4.355
321
1
6
22
83
5
5
4.312
1.511
4.146
4.477
Q 4 - The planning and organising
of the days' work is good
321
1
6
14
72
5
5
4.461
1.277
4.321
4.601
Q 5 - My work gives me a strong
sense of achievement
321
1
6
27
81
5
5
4.355
1.520
4.188
4.522
Q 6 - People usually thanked for a
good job or for some special work
321
1
6
39
38
5
4
3.754
1.528
3.586
3.922
321
1
6
21
87
5
5
4.340
1.500
4.175
4.504
Q 7 - I feel I could take on more
responsibility
Q 8 - I want to contribute to making
AB Company a very successful
company
Q 9 - Management want team
working to be the basis way we
work
Q 10 - We have good
communication within and
between teams
Q 11 - I am part of a group that
have real team spirit
Q 12 - People are willing to
confront problems openly rather
than hide them
Q 13 - I am regularly asked how to
improve my work
Q 14 - I am consulted about plans
that affect me
Q 15 - My team holds regular
meetings to discuss continuous
improvements
Q 16 - My team measures the
quality of work and strives for
improvement
Q 17 - I accept that changes being
made are necessary
Q 18 - I have long term job security
Q 19 - The company consults
before implementing major
changes
Q 20 - AB Company is a friendly
place to work
Q 21 - I am able to improve health
and safety at work for myself and
colleagues
Q 22 - My supervisor and
management team take safety
concerns seriously
Q 23 - The AB Company safety
programs / systems have helped
to improve my safety at work
321 16 17 197 5
6 5.174 1.344 5.027 5.322
321 16 22 87 54 4.299 1.457 4.139 4.459
321 16 27 35 54 3.779 1.396 3.626 3.932
321
1
6
24
67
5
4
4.128
1.464
3.967
4.288
321
1
6
41
32
5
4
3.533
1.521
3.366
3.700
321
1
6
55
27
5
3
3.118
1.485
2.955
3.281
321
1
6
62
26
5
3
3.283
1.612
3.107
3.460
321
1
6
56
40
5
4
3.542
1.612
3.365
3.719
321
1
6
25
54
5
4
4.100
1.444
3.941
4.258
321
1
6
19
80
5
5
4.305
1.436
4.148
4.463
321
1
6
30
53
5
4
3.822
1.558
3.651
3.994
321 16 69 18 53 3.053 1.498 2.888 3.217
321
1
6
38
42
5
4
3.751
1.517
3.584
3.917
321
1
6
16
68
5
4
4.078
1.450
3.919
4.237
321
1
6
20
95
5
5
4.330
1.495
4.166
4.494
321 1 6 28 56 5
4 3.994 1.483 3.831 4.157

Magister in Business Administration

Transcription

Similar documents

Industry Day Event Friday, August 5th, 2016 SDSU Parma Payne

Lean Principles in Facility Management

CIO Update

CI Learning Network Newsletter

gokaldas exports 1 - TBM Consulting Group

Construction Big Room - Lean Construction Institute

50 cent - Oak Grove College

An open letter to Jim Ratcliffe, Ineos` owner

Housework? That`s a job for women say men

InBody720 Spec Sheet